From mwedel at sonic.net Thu Nov 1 01:46:57 2007 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:46:57 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] monster cleanup/organization Message-ID: <47297661.9010307@sonic.net> As part of the tavern test server, I'm going through and cleaning up/balancing some of the monsters. I'm trying to limit changes to some extent, but a lot of monsters have 'incorrect' AC, WC, or damage values, at least as far as the new system goes. I'm first just doing a rough pass. In some cases, the exp for different monsters is also way out of whack - if two monsters are nearly identical, but one has twice as many HP as the first, then pretty clear the exp values should be different. But one thing I've found is that level of the monster also seems to be used fairly inconsistently. If one follows the supposition that the monsters exp rating is a rough idea of its danger to the player (which seems correct to me), then it tends to follow that a monsters level should be based quite a bit on that exp value. For example, a level 1 monster with 1000 exp seems incorrect (we'll presume that the stats of the monster itself say 1000 exp is reasonable for the danger), as something that dangerous would almost certainly slaughter a level 1 character. And while I don't think that players should be limited to meeting creatures of the same level as they are, I think that as far as map making goes, having some idea of difficulty that is consistent is good. Related to that is also the fact that certain spells and spell effects are level differential based. A very tough creature with a level value that is too low is now likely to be too vulnerable to things like death magic. So my thought is to try to set levels of creature based roughly on exp - start of a table here: Level 1 creatures: less than 25 exp Level 2: less than 50 Level 3: less than 100 Level 4: less than 250 Level 5: less than 500 I don't forsee this constantly doubling - at some point, it probably becomes much more linear - some reason is that the exp table for players starts becoming fairly linear at level 15-20 I think. Thoughts/comments? From mwedel at sonic.net Fri Nov 2 01:48:05 2007 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:48:05 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] tavern combat server, was Re: Project: Slow down combat In-Reply-To: <47218E97.7030700@sonic.net> References: <46E64006.6020004@sonic.net> <200710060026.16734.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> <47085373.9070808@sonic.net> <200710252313.42245.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> <47218E97.7030700@sonic.net> Message-ID: <472AC825.9060004@sonic.net> Just a heads up - Leaf created a forum for the tavern combat server at: http://forum.metalforge.net/viewforum.php?f=20 I expect some conversation to continue on the mailing list, but will likely use the forum to discuss some of the more specific changes as well as a place for people to provide some of the more mundane data I want. From mwedel at sonic.net Sat Nov 3 02:06:34 2007 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:06:34 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] combat, spell & monster balance Message-ID: <472C1DFA.7060409@sonic.net> On my tavern server, I'm going through and trying to balance/re-adjust the monsters for the changes. I wrote a simple script for myself that dumps out key stats for the monsters (wc, ac, hp, etc), and also based on actual play data, calculates odds the monster has to hit the player, vice versa, how long the monster would expect to live, and likewise how much damage it would expect to do to the player. I'm sure my script isn't perfect, but this does general useful comparison data - another thing I do is have a feature where it only dumps all the monsters of a specific level - this makes the comparisons really easy - are the wc/ac/hp/exp of the monsters all within reasonable values, etc. This is a sort of slow process, but somewhat interesting. Now playing with this some, my observations: - Compared to player level, monsters should generally have similar hp to the player - this just is needed to keep player vs player balance - right now, most spells do so much damage at high levels (needed because monsters have hp), that it will kill another player if hit by it. - Related to that, it means that monsters generally need to have fairly similar hp at a given level - this goes backs to spell again. For example, if you have 2 level 5 monsters, one at 75 hp, the other at 25, but of similar toughness (due to armor, ac, damage, speed), that second one is now easy pickings for a mage, as AC is meaningless for most spells, as is armor (may have other resistances, but probably not for everything - and if so, why not just give more HP then). This isn't a hard and fast rule, but that is one thing I have noticed in my balancing - in some cases, the HP range varies a whole bunch - More on HP - reducing the dynamic rage also helps out in spell balance and spell reduction - with some creatures have 5,000 hp, there really isn't any way within the game to have low level spells increase in damage at a fast enough rate to keep up with that, so you get higher level spells. If monster HP doesn't rise so dramatically, it may not be possible for things like bolt spells to increase in damage enough to still be effective at higher levels - Last note on HP - at the low levels, with the revised starting HP on the tavern server, the monsters tend to have lower HP with them catching up to the player at higher - I'll have to see how this works with spells, but in some cases, it just doesn't make sense/work to have higher hp - for example, if a mouse had 20 HP, it would take a character probably 4 hits to kill it (and that presumes that mouse has an AC bad enough that the character can hit every time) - in that mode, I don't think players would ever really be able to clear out those mouse and slime infested areas. I think this may also work better/help balance the mages - their starting spell may still be able to kill those first level creatures and not kill players, and given they are likely to need to rest often to regain mana, that faster kill is likely to offset the time they need to rest. - Related to that, and also to other discussions, it would seem desirable to me that as creature level goes up, so does its life expectancy, even though the player level is higher and does more damage. A lot of this is based on maps - most low level maps are just maps full of monsters, where as when you start to get higher, the maps tend to be more sparse. If it took 5 seconds to kill a kobold, that would be really annoying really fast, but taking 5 seconds (or longer) to kill a dragonman likely wouldn't. - I've also noticed from my script that the total damage the creature does relative to the player increases as level goes up (I term this %death of player) - a lot of this relates to the above - individually, low level creatures are short lived, and don't do a lot of damage, so are not likely to do a bunch of damage on their own. But this also strikes me as a somewhat good thing - at low levels, the only option for a character is really to run away and rest - at higher levels, many more options exist - potions, spells, scrolls, etc to regain HP. In fact, it seems reasonable that at higher levels, there may be monsters who %death > 100, implying that a character can not survive a 1 on 1 battle without using magical healing - One way in which i'm balancing monsters is by the speed they have - most monsters have a speed of less than 0.25, and many are only at 0.1 -> 0.2. Doubling a monsters speed from 0.2 to 0.4 effectively doubles how dangerous it is (more attacks in that time period) - I expect that may be a way a lot of the more powerful monsters get adjusted to make up for their loss of hp (that and increasing resistance values if they are currently low) - As per other e-mail, in my balancing, I do tend to be grouping monsters of similar exp (and thus danger) at the same level - this once again makes it much easier to compare the monsters and see things that stick out Just sme random observations and thoughts. From juhaj at iki.fi Sat Nov 3 07:00:51 2007 From: juhaj at iki.fi (Juha =?iso-8859-1?q?J=E4ykk=E4?=) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:00:51 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] combat, spell & monster balance In-Reply-To: <472C1DFA.7060409@sonic.net> References: <472C1DFA.7060409@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200711031400.55795.juhaj@iki.fi> Just some thoughts on this... First, the script seems very useful. > - Compared to player level, monsters should generally have similar hp to > the player - this just is needed to keep player vs player balance - right > now, most spells do so much damage at high levels (needed because monsters > have hp), that it will kill another player if hit by it. This has indeed been a real problem for area effect spells and teamplay. On the teamplay topic, there was an earlier suggestion of allowing arrows and bullet/missile-type spells pass right through (think of "beside") an ally if shot from the next square, that is a fighter could block the monster from getting to the archer/mage who could cast stuff from behind the fighter. Is this still on the agenda? I think it seems very useful (and easy to implement). > - Related to that, it means that monsters generally need to have fairly > similar hp at a given level - this goes backs to spell again. For example, > if you have 2 level 5 monsters, one at 75 hp, the other at 25, but of > similar toughness (due to armor, ac, damage, speed), that second one is now > easy pickings for a mage, as AC is meaningless for most spells, as is armor > (may have other resistances, but probably not for everything - and if so, > why not just give more HP then). This isn't a hard and fast rule, but that This is not the whole story. There are also monsters with resist_magic +100 that are very hard to kill for mages but are easy pickings for everyone else (beholders come to mind - they are so slow that they are easy kills if you have any melee skills). I think this is ok. It should be possible for some monsters to be easy kills for mages and some for fighters - it again gives more reason for teamplay: let mages handle armour +100 monsters and fighters resist_magic +100 monsters etc. > - More on HP - reducing the dynamic rage also helps out in spell balance > and spell reduction - with some creatures have 5,000 hp, there really isn't > any way within the game to have low level spells increase in damage at a > fast enough rate to keep up with that, so you get higher level spells. If > monster HP doesn't rise so dramatically, it may not be possible for things > like bolt spells to increase in damage enough to still be effective at > higher levels This is true. > - Last note on HP - at the low levels, with the revised starting HP on the > tavern server, the monsters tend to have lower HP with them catching up to > the player at higher - I'll have to see how this works with spells, but in > some cases, it just doesn't make sense/work to have higher hp - for > example, if a mouse had 20 HP, it would take a character probably 4 hits to > kill it (and that presumes that mouse has an AC bad enough that the > character can hit every time) - in that mode, I don't think players would > ever really be able to clear out those mouse and slime infested areas. I > think this may also work better/help balance the mages - their starting > spell may still be able to kill those first level creatures and not kill > players, and given they are likely to need to rest often to regain mana, > that faster kill is likely to offset the time they need to rest. True, too. I think we need to decide whether we give mages area-effect spells or not, because this kind of balance really hinges on the existence of area effect spells. I think we should have them, but not like they are now: fireballs, for example, are totally useless: by the time they are able to kill any monster, you already have much more effective spells. And small fireball, when you first can gain it, is not capable of killing anything except perhaps mice. This needs to be tweaked. The problem here is balance between the level you get the spells and the level of monster the spell is capable of killing. At 20th level your fireball should certainly kill orcs, but then, who wants to go kill orcs at 20th level? (Unless the orcs stand in front of some tougher, more rewarding target.) On the other hand, if at 5th level the fireball is capable of killing orcs, it has to be balanced very carefully: a single fireball could easily kill 20 orcs, so a mage able to cast 5 of them quickly kills of a 100 orcs - it should really take very long to regain those spell points afterwards. Ideally, it should take as much time as a 5th level fighter takes to kill 100-X orcs, where X is the number of orcs the fighter is able to kill while the mage casts the 5 fireballs. Thus when the mage again has maximum SP, the fighter has finished off another 100 orcs and thus the mage and the fighter are balanced. The numbers used are examples, hope you get the idea. > - Related to that, and also to other discussions, it would seem desirable > to me that as creature level goes up, so does its life expectancy, even > though the player level is higher and does more damage. A lot of this is > based on maps - most low level maps are just maps full of monsters, where > as when you start to get higher, the maps tend to be more sparse. If it > took 5 seconds to kill a kobold, that would be really annoying really fast, > but taking 5 seconds (or longer) to kill a dragonman likely wouldn't. Agreed. But, then again, it should not take too long. I remember a time the only way for my mage to kill cyclops or dragonmen was leprosy... The amount of waiting in Meganthrop*'s castle was not fun. > potions, spells, scrolls, etc to regain HP. In fact, it seems reasonable > that at higher levels, there may be monsters who %death > 100, implying > that a character can not survive a 1 on 1 battle without using magical > healing True, but this also applies to lower levels. At 1st level, any dragon is a sure death. > - One way in which i'm balancing monsters is by the speed they have - most > monsters have a speed of less than 0.25, and many are only at 0.1 -> 0.2. > Doubling a monsters speed from 0.2 to 0.4 effectively doubles how dangerous > it is (more attacks in that time period) - I expect that may be a way a lot > of the more powerful monsters get adjusted to make up for their loss of hp > (that and increasing resistance values if they are currently low) That's a nice way, as long as the monsters are not unplayably fast (without good reason - some creatures might be ok if there is lore to explain their unnatural speed). > Just sme random observations and thoughts. Likewise. =) -Juha -- ----------------------------------------------- | Juha J?ykk?, juolja at utu.fi | | home: http://www.utu.fi/~juolja/ | ----------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20071103/e8163dc9/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Sat Nov 3 15:45:54 2007 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:45:54 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] combat, spell & monster balance In-Reply-To: <200711031400.55795.juhaj@iki.fi> References: <472C1DFA.7060409@sonic.net> <200711031400.55795.juhaj@iki.fi> Message-ID: <472CDE02.2010904@sonic.net> Juha J?ykk? wrote: > Just some thoughts on this... First, the script seems very useful. > >> - Compared to player level, monsters should generally have similar hp to >> the player - this just is needed to keep player vs player balance - right >> now, most spells do so much damage at high levels (needed because monsters >> have hp), that it will kill another player if hit by it. > > This has indeed been a real problem for area effect spells and teamplay. On > the teamplay topic, there was an earlier suggestion of allowing arrows and > bullet/missile-type spells pass right through (think of "beside") an ally if > shot from the next square, that is a fighter could block the monster from > getting to the archer/mage who could cast stuff from behind the fighter. Is > this still on the agenda? I think it seems very useful (and easy to > implement). Yes - that is something I want to look at doing - it should be fairly easy. But there are some special cases. For example, if in the arena, if you are next to someone and cast a bolt spell, you obviously want it to hit them, and not start at the space beyond them, etc, so that needs to be handled. And the more general question is - outside the arena, should it be presumed that this is always desired behavior? That doesn't work great for servers that want/allow player killing (same note as above). The other possibility is to only do that skipping of spaces if folks are part of the same party. > >> - Related to that, it means that monsters generally need to have fairly >> similar hp at a given level - this goes backs to spell again. For example, >> if you have 2 level 5 monsters, one at 75 hp, the other at 25, but of >> similar toughness (due to armor, ac, damage, speed), that second one is now >> easy pickings for a mage, as AC is meaningless for most spells, as is armor >> (may have other resistances, but probably not for everything - and if so, >> why not just give more HP then). This isn't a hard and fast rule, but that > > This is not the whole story. There are also monsters with resist_magic +100 > that are very hard to kill for mages but are easy pickings for everyone else > (beholders come to mind - they are so slow that they are easy kills if you > have any melee skills). I think this is ok. It should be possible for some > monsters to be easy kills for mages and some for fighters - it again gives > more reason for teamplay: let mages handle armour +100 monsters and fighters > resist_magic +100 monsters etc. My personal thought is there should be very few/no monsters that are 100% immune to magic. I know in some cases this is because you have groups of them, and you don't want them to kill each other. But I think some of this is also left over from the days when monsters where either immune or protected, and not the current percentage scale - when that change was made, anything that was immune got 100% resistance, protection was 50%. I think making those creatures 90% (lets say) would still make them very difficult (and time consuming) to kill with spells, but not impossible. A 'problem' is that lots of maps mix in a whole bunch of different monsters. While we want to encourage team play, at the same time, we have to acknowledge that solo play (even on a public server) is likely to be fairly common. And I think some of the changes that are being made as part of these balances will result in it becoming much more difficult for mages to fall back to melee attacks. What this means is that a map with beholders (if 100% immune to magic) may be virtually impossible for magic users, but those beholders may only make up 10% of the map - that is sort of a waste of a map now. >> - Last note on HP - at the low levels, with the revised starting HP on the >> tavern server, the monsters tend to have lower HP with them catching up to >> the player at higher - I'll have to see how this works with spells, but in >> some cases, it just doesn't make sense/work to have higher hp - for >> example, if a mouse had 20 HP, it would take a character probably 4 hits to >> kill it (and that presumes that mouse has an AC bad enough that the >> character can hit every time) - in that mode, I don't think players would >> ever really be able to clear out those mouse and slime infested areas. I >> think this may also work better/help balance the mages - their starting >> spell may still be able to kill those first level creatures and not kill >> players, and given they are likely to need to rest often to regain mana, >> that faster kill is likely to offset the time they need to rest. > > True, too. I think we need to decide whether we give mages area-effect spells > or not, because this kind of balance really hinges on the existence of area > effect spells. I think we should have them, but not like they are now: > fireballs, for example, are totally useless: by the time they are able to > kill any monster, you already have much more effective spells. And small > fireball, when you first can gain it, is not capable of killing anything > except perhaps mice. This needs to be tweaked. Spells need to get rebalanced - once monsters hp and the like are adjusted, it then makes it easier to balance spells. Presuming the idea of elemental spells come in, this is what I'd see as quick type of spells: bullet spells (like magic bullet now) - does good amount of damage at relatively low SP cost, but only hits a single target. If you are only hitting a single target, this should do the most amount of damage bolt spells - hits a line of targets, does less to each monster than a single bullet, but the fact you can hit a long line of monsters may mean aggregate damage is higher cone spells - like bolts, not as much damage as a bullet, but does hit potentially a large group of monsters, so aggregate damage is higher ball spells (fireball & like) - this really depends on size again. a 2 radius fireball should do more damage than a 6 radius fireball to individual monsters, but aggregate damage is likely to be more in the 6 radius Note that there is also other tuning going on here - the actual cost in spell points adjust things. But in order to prevent player killing, none of these spells should probably do more than 25% of a players total HP damage in one hit. This means if players at the level have 100hp, and monsters also have 100hp, it would take 4 spells to kill those monsters (about). Now as noted above, monster HP will vary - some monsters at that level may only have 6, so 3 spells, and some may be vulnerable, taking extra damage, so also die faster, etc. But just quick thoughts there. >> - Related to that, and also to other discussions, it would seem desirable >> to me that as creature level goes up, so does its life expectancy, even >> though the player level is higher and does more damage. A lot of this is >> based on maps - most low level maps are just maps full of monsters, where >> as when you start to get higher, the maps tend to be more sparse. If it >> took 5 seconds to kill a kobold, that would be really annoying really fast, >> but taking 5 seconds (or longer) to kill a dragonman likely wouldn't. > > Agreed. But, then again, it should not take too long. I remember a time the > only way for my mage to kill cyclops or dragonmen was leprosy... The amount > of waiting in Meganthrop*'s castle was not fun. Right - but I think the thinking was that even at really high level with single boss monsters, a battle may take 30 seconds - a lot longer than now, but not so long as to be tiring, especially for boss monsters. > >> potions, spells, scrolls, etc to regain HP. In fact, it seems reasonable >> that at higher levels, there may be monsters who %death > 100, implying >> that a character can not survive a 1 on 1 battle without using magical >> healing > > True, but this also applies to lower levels. At 1st level, any dragon is a > sure death. Right - I'm more comparing monsters that the character is expected to fight. That expectation is based largely on exp of creature - at level 40, killing level 5 creatures is a lot less dangerous than when you were level 50, but the amount of exp you get, related to how much you need for next level, is such it probably isn't worthwhile. Likewise, a level 5 character could attempt to take on higher level monsters, with it being appropriately more difficult, but they also get a greater reward. > >> - One way in which i'm balancing monsters is by the speed they have - most >> monsters have a speed of less than 0.25, and many are only at 0.1 -> 0.2. >> Doubling a monsters speed from 0.2 to 0.4 effectively doubles how dangerous >> it is (more attacks in that time period) - I expect that may be a way a lot >> of the more powerful monsters get adjusted to make up for their loss of hp >> (that and increasing resistance values if they are currently low) > > That's a nice way, as long as the monsters are not unplayably fast (without > good reason - some creatures might be ok if there is lore to explain their > unnatural speed). A lot of monster speed was really slow, relative to players. There are very few monsters that players can't easily outrun, because the speed of them is so slow. I'd almost say that speed of most monsters should be increased, but that changes balance a whole bunch, so having slow monsters isn't that big a deal for the most part. From juhaj at iki.fi Sun Nov 4 04:56:01 2007 From: juhaj at iki.fi (Juha =?iso-8859-1?q?J=E4ykk=E4?=) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:56:01 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] combat, spell & monster balance In-Reply-To: <472CDE02.2010904@sonic.net> References: <472C1DFA.7060409@sonic.net> <200711031400.55795.juhaj@iki.fi> <472CDE02.2010904@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200711041256.05861.juhaj@iki.fi> > > and bullet/missile-type spells pass right through (think of "beside") an > > ally if shot from the next square, that is a fighter could block the > possibility is to only do that skipping of spaces if folks are part of the > same party. This is what I meant by "ally". Only pass through a member of your party. Hence no problem on PK or arena. > My personal thought is there should be very few/no monsters that are 100% > immune to magic. I know in some cases this is because you have groups of While I tend to agree, things will change dramatically if high-level magic becomes "non-magic" (as in attack type does not include magic) as was discussed earlier. That would remove the problem of (high level monsters) having 100% magic resistance. It would still leave room for difficult monsters at high levels. > fairly common. And I think some of the changes that are being made as part > of these balances will result in it becoming much more difficult for mages > to fall back to melee attacks. This is fine, although I do not understand your reference here. Falling back to melee has always been difficult at least for fireborns. Fireborns get killed quite easily by beholders even as is. (Unless you are high level in karate, but that is extremely tedious work as a fireborn.) > What this means is that a map with beholders (if 100% immune to magic) > may be virtually impossible for magic users, but those beholders may only > make up 10% of the map - that is sort of a waste of a map now. This is a multiplayer game. I think having maps that are virtually impossible (or even impossible) for a single character of a given profession, is quite ok. Of course those maps should be relatively rare and give better than usual rewards to encourage teamplay. Almos impossible, however, is not as bad as it sounds. It just means you need to use your wits. =) I can kill the beholders with a fireborn without using melee or spells with magic attacktype: animate weapon, summon and such come to mind. (At high levels, dragonbreath does not have attacktype magic, so it works nicely. Also, Gaea's banishment works.) > Spells need to get rebalanced - once monsters hp and the like are > adjusted, it then makes it easier to balance spells. I agree: doing things one step at a time is a good way to proceed. Once melee is in balance, it should be easy to balance magic and combinations of melee and magic etc. Once we have a baseline, things get easier. And melee is probably the easiest to balance, so it's best to start there. > Note that there is also other tuning going on here - the actual cost in > spell points adjust things. Those were just attack-spells, there would probably be others, too. I really liked the idea of earthquake and world-modifying spells at very high levels. > But in order to prevent player killing, none of these spells should > probably do more than 25% of a players total HP damage in one hit. This > means if players at the level have 100hp, and monsters also have 100hp, it > would take 4 spells to kill those monsters (about). Now as noted above, Apart from attacktype death spells, this is fine. Single spell to kill is probably too powerful, but the mage will need to be able to cast several spells within relatively short period of time lest the mages will never be able to go around alone. As what comes to attacktype death... at least single-target spells with such attacktype should exist in my opinion. But probably not at any low levels. > Right - but I think the thinking was that even at really high level with > single boss monsters, a battle may take 30 seconds - a lot longer than now, > but not so long as to be tiring, especially for boss monsters. 30 seconds is a blink of an eye. I was talking of about order of 30 *hours* to get a bunch of cyclops out of the way. That was too much. But on the other hand, 30 seconds is too generous, I think. I would say spending even 30 minutes battling a single "final" battle of a quest would be fine - IF there is some signs of progress along the way. Like killing 25 cyclops one per minute and then the final boss in 5 minutes. That would be fine with me. Even longer, if players need to heal in the middle, but what is most important is to make sure players know they make some progress! Probe is a good spell in that regard, but a) not everyone has access to it and b) thinking of cyclops again, you almost never get any real info out of those (because they heal so fast that by the time you've backed off and cast probe, they're at maximum hp again). The easisest way of showing players they're making progress is by having more than one monster and letting the cannon fodder die relatively easily, but still wearing the players down for the boss to finish off (or die trying =) ). > fight. That expectation is based largely on exp of creature - at level 40, > killing level 5 creatures is a lot less dangerous than when you were level > 50, but the amount of exp you get, related to how much you need for next An extra 0 here? > level, is such it probably isn't worthwhile. Exactly. > Likewise, a level 5 character could attempt to take on higher level > monsters, with it being appropriately more difficult, but they also get a > greater reward. This reminds me of the problem with a team of 50th and 5th level character... How to handle the exp so that the 5th level character does not jump to 25th level in a couple of minutes? > A lot of monster speed was really slow, relative to players. There are > very few monsters that players can't easily outrun, because the speed of > them is so slow. I'd almost say that speed of most monsters should be > increased, but that changes balance a whole bunch, so having slow monsters > isn't that big a deal for the most part. I think players were too fast relative to everything else. While traveling the big worldmap would be very boring if players were too slow, I also think it is very stupid for characters to be able to outrun magic bullets, speedballs, magic missiles and such, which currently is almost trivial. Since monsters are slow, spells are slow and we want to make battles longer (or at least slower-paced), I think slowing down players is really the right way to go - like you already have done. -Juha -- ----------------------------------------------- | Juha J?ykk?, juolja at utu.fi | | home: http://www.utu.fi/~juolja/ | ----------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20071104/b3238973/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Mon Nov 5 23:23:40 2007 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:23:40 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] combat, spell & monster balance In-Reply-To: <200711041256.05861.juhaj@iki.fi> References: <472C1DFA.7060409@sonic.net> <200711031400.55795.juhaj@iki.fi> <472CDE02.2010904@sonic.net> <200711041256.05861.juhaj@iki.fi> Message-ID: <472FFA5C.5060906@sonic.net> Juha J?ykk? wrote: >> My personal thought is there should be very few/no monsters that are 100% >> immune to magic. I know in some cases this is because you have groups of > > While I tend to agree, things will change dramatically if high-level magic > becomes "non-magic" (as in attack type does not include magic) as was > discussed earlier. That would remove the problem of (high level monsters) > having 100% magic resistance. It would still leave room for difficult > monsters at high levels. Yes - it changes things. Note that currently, there are some high level spells that don't have magic in them - IIRC, that was the main point of dragonbreath. IMO, the high levels spells that only do elemental damage should probably be less powerful than same spells that do magic + elemental. The main difference being is pure elemental spells are usable against magic immune (or highly resistant creatures) - normally, you'd want to use the magic + elemental if the creature doesn't have special protections. And for balance, that probably makes sense - if the pure elemental spell was always the best choice, that is probably an unbalanced spell. However, if it is a choice the caster has among many spells, sometimes being better, sometimes worse, that is a better balance. > >> fairly common. And I think some of the changes that are being made as part >> of these balances will result in it becoming much more difficult for mages >> to fall back to melee attacks. > > This is fine, although I do not understand your reference here. Falling back > to melee has always been difficult at least for fireborns. Fireborns get > killed quite easily by beholders even as is. (Unless you are high level in > karate, but that is extremely tedious work as a fireborn.) Right now, a mage can pretty easily choose to be a fighter -they can use all the same weapons and armor (but using that gear while casting is difficult). But the point being is that the mage could carry that suit of armor & weapons about, and when they meet something they can't kill with magic, gear up and beat it physically. There is still the issue that a mage probably doesn't have especially good combat skills, but I'm thinking of changing things so that the choice of weapons the mage can use is more limited, so falling back to melee is even more difficult. Most mages I've played have had a pretty respectable combat skill because of the above. Some is also based on maps - I'm not going to waste my sp on the wimpy monsters on the level, and thus will kill them with melee instead, etc. > >> What this means is that a map with beholders (if 100% immune to magic) >> may be virtually impossible for magic users, but those beholders may only >> make up 10% of the map - that is sort of a waste of a map now. > > This is a multiplayer game. I think having maps that are virtually impossible > (or even impossible) for a single character of a given profession, is quite > ok. Of course those maps should be relatively rare and give better than usual > rewards to encourage teamplay. Almos impossible, however, is not as bad as it > sounds. It just means you need to use your wits. =) I can kill the beholders > with a fireborn without using melee or spells with magic attacktype: animate > weapon, summon and such come to mind. (At high levels, > dragonbreath does not have attacktype magic, so it works nicely. Also, Gaea's > banishment works.) Pretty much agree. But in a sense, there are several types of multiplayer maps. Most of what are considered multiplayer right now are not related to monsters, but instead have to do with lever interactions, etc (different levers need to be pulled at the same time). Those maps tend to be well documented, with a message pretty much at the start saying so (it is otherwise frustating to get half way through the map to find you can't complete it). However, that same frustration can apply for monsters. If you're a mage and have spent quite a while working on a map, only to get to a room full of monsters you can't damage, that is pretty annoying (and same can be said for fighters for that matter). It may be realistic, but the game is meant to be fun, not necessarily realistic. > >> Note that there is also other tuning going on here - the actual cost in >> spell points adjust things. > > Those were just attack-spells, there would probably be others, too. I really > liked the idea of earthquake and world-modifying spells at very high levels. World modifying to the extent they last until the map resets or the like. But I think such spells would make things more interesting for the players. > >> But in order to prevent player killing, none of these spells should >> probably do more than 25% of a players total HP damage in one hit. This >> means if players at the level have 100hp, and monsters also have 100hp, it >> would take 4 spells to kill those monsters (about). Now as noted above, > > Apart from attacktype death spells, this is fine. Single spell to kill is > probably too powerful, but the mage will need to be able to cast several > spells within relatively short period of time lest the mages will never be > able to go around alone. Right, and nothing is preventing casting of multiple spells. The perhaps trickier part relative to mages is having the spells keep up in damage but also keep the spell point cost under control. > > As what comes to attacktype death... at least single-target spells with such > attacktype should exist in my opinion. But probably not at any low levels. death attack is a somewhat tricky one. First question is where do put it in the elemental magics. But the other problem is that it tends to be level based, with the caster level being higher than monster level. Thus, it often isn't effective when you want it to be. This can probably be balanced - very high mana cost, very short ranges, etc. resistance to death attacks should likely act as a level modifier. But I'm likely to basically remove all spells, and then re-add them as I balance them - that's easier than trying to balance them all at once. > >> Right - but I think the thinking was that even at really high level with >> single boss monsters, a battle may take 30 seconds - a lot longer than now, >> but not so long as to be tiring, especially for boss monsters. > > 30 seconds is a blink of an eye. I was talking of about order of 30 *hours* to > get a bunch of cyclops out of the way. That was too much. But on the other > hand, 30 seconds is too generous, I think. I would say spending even 30 > minutes battling a single "final" battle of a quest would be fine - IF there > is some signs of progress along the way. Like killing 25 cyclops one per > minute and then the final boss in 5 minutes. That would be fine with me. Even > longer, if players need to heal in the middle, but what is most important is > to make sure players know they make some progress! Probe is a good spell in > that regard, but a) not everyone has access to it and b) thinking of cyclops > again, you almost never get any real info out of those (because they heal so > fast that by the time you've backed off and cast probe, they're at maximum hp > again). The easisest way of showing players they're making progress is by > having more than one monster and letting the cannon fodder die relatively > easily, but still wearing the players down for the boss to finish off (or die > trying =) ). I was talking a single combat, not how long it takes to slog ones way through the dungeon. But in the case of working your way through a dungeon, you do know you are making progress. You are correct that for some monsters, it can be very difficult to know if one is making progress. I do have a feeling that with slower combat, the regeneration rate of many monsters will need adjusting, because the player will not be able to deal damage as fast as they could before. >> Likewise, a level 5 character could attempt to take on higher level >> monsters, with it being appropriately more difficult, but they also get a >> greater reward. > > This reminds me of the problem with a team of 50th and 5th level character... > How to handle the exp so that the 5th level character does not jump to 25th > level in a couple of minutes? There isn't a great way. You could perhaps put limits in on how much exp a character can gain relative to what they need for any killed monster (for example, no matter what, it takes at least 10 monsters to be killed to gain a level). But that just means that the high level party has to kill 200 monsters to get a level 5 person to level 25 - that just means going into a random map most likely. At the same time, you don't want to make things too hard - I remember one time playing a character and finding some arrows of assassinating trolls - it was relatively cool to get a lot of exp by using the arrows on the troll (the character wasn't very high level, so the exp from a troll was significant). > I think players were too fast relative to everything else. While traveling the > big worldmap would be very boring if players were too slow, I also think it > is very stupid for characters to be able to outrun magic bullets, speedballs, > magic missiles and such, which currently is almost trivial. Since monsters > are slow, spells are slow and we want to make battles longer (or at least > slower-paced), I think slowing down players is really the right way to go - > like you already have done. That is one change that was made - players are not quite so fast. And I likely will speed up many of the spells so they get to the target faster (and harder to outrun). You really shouldn't be able to outrun a lightning bolt. From kbulgrien at worldnet.att.net Tue Nov 6 10:20:38 2007 From: kbulgrien at worldnet.att.net (Kevin R. Bulgrien) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 10:20:38 -0600 Subject: [crossfire] Server version enhancement? Message-ID: <200711061020.38326.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> Various server version reporting facilities reports a version like 1.10, etc., but testing of fixes, etc. would require knowing the svnversion of the server. I have mods against the server borrowed from the client that modify version information reported in the log (init.c): Welcome to CrossFire, v2.0-dev-r7487M Copyright (C) 1994 Mark Wedel. Copyright (C) 1992 Frank Tore Johansen. And in the player accessible version command (version() in server.c): This is Crossfire v2.0-dev-r7487M The authors can be reached at crossfire at metalforge.org Does anyone have any particular objection to these mods being committed? If not, the metaserver could report this FULL_VERSION. Should it? Kevin From mwedel at sonic.net Tue Nov 6 23:46:13 2007 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:46:13 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Server version enhancement? In-Reply-To: <200711061020.38326.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> References: <200711061020.38326.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <47315125.2050704@sonic.net> Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote: > Various server version reporting facilities reports a version like 1.10, etc., > but testing of fixes, etc. would require knowing the svnversion of the server. > > I have mods against the server borrowed from the client that modify version > information reported in the log (init.c): > > Welcome to CrossFire, v2.0-dev-r7487M > Copyright (C) 1994 Mark Wedel. > Copyright (C) 1992 Frank Tore Johansen. > > And in the player accessible version command (version() in server.c): > > This is Crossfire v2.0-dev-r7487M > The authors can be reached at crossfire at metalforge.org > > Does anyone have any particular objection to these mods being committed? No complaints - in fact, I think that is a good change. > > If not, the metaserver could report this FULL_VERSION. Should it? Maybe. Probably for official releases, it shouldn't (and just report 1.11 or the like). However, if not an official release and instead compiled from SVN, then it probably should. From cher at riedquat.de Thu Nov 8 16:32:24 2007 From: cher at riedquat.de (Christian Hujer) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 23:32:24 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Gridarta Repository Restructuring Message-ID: <200711082332.34042.cher@riedquat.de> Hi devs, this is a suggestion for a restructuring of the Gridarta SVN repository. Current structure: gridarta/trunk/ +-src/ common source code, website data etc. +-crossfire/ crossfire specific source code and data files +-daimonin/ daimonin specific source code (The terms MUST etc. according to RFC 2119) REQUIRED: REQ1: Gridarta developers SHALL still see and work with one directory that contains everything to prevent changes to one editor breaking another. REQ2: Crossfire developers SHALL be able to include a source version of Gridarta4Crossfire without prepared data files and without source for other editors. RECOMMENDED: REC3: Gridarta developers SHOULD be able to choose between versions that REC4: The website should be separated completely from the rest. REQ1 is fulfilled by the current structure. REQ2 and REC3 are not fulfilled by the current structure. Suggestion 1 of new structure: /components/ +-crossfire/trunk crossfire specific source code +-crossfire-data/trunk crossfire specific data files +-daimonin/trunk daimonin specific source code +-gridarta/trunk common source code +-website/trunk website /releases/ +-gridarta4crossfire/ +-gridarta4crossfire/trunk/ svn:external to /components/crossfire/trunk, ( +-gridarta4daimonin/ could be created analogously as needed) /trunk/ configured to match the current structure but using svn:externals or symbolic links (note: symlinks only work on POSIX) instead of directories of its own to include the trunk/ versions of gridarta/components On /components/: In JAPI I made the experience that at least for myself a strongly component oriented, scattered project structure is still very very easy to handle with subversion. There I have XX/YY/ttbs, e.g. libs/swing-action/trunk, libs/argparser/trunk, tools/foo/trunk etc. etc. etc.. Most of these modules use at least one other module, common/trunk using svn:externals. If you have other ideas or see flaws please participate in the discussion. Cheers :) -- Christian Hujer Free software developer mailto:cher at riedquat.de http://www.riedquat.de/ PGP Fingerprint: 03DE 4B72 4E57 A98D C79B 24A5 212E 0217 0554 CCAB -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20071108/5c10cdbf/attachment.pgp From tchize at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 18:26:13 2007 From: tchize at gmail.com (David Delbecq) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 01:26:13 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] back from grave Message-ID: Hello, am back from the grave. Coming back after lots of month away from crossfire, i took opportunity to checkout fresh svn. I noticed the "latest" entry in svn, that is not working. The readme tells it should contains the trunk of various tools. It did not. Assuming it was a missing commit for svn metadatas from someone, i added the server / client / maps / sounds / arch / gridarta as external repositories of latest/ (so now you can just check it out to get trunk of all tools) I also noticed lack of clarity about disparition of configure script. wiki give correct procedure, but INSTALL on server does not. I added 2 lines about autogen.sh there and a link to wiki for details After sucessfull compiling and running of server i noticed a few messages that did not follow the "time [level] message" format of Log(). It appeared those where generated by calls to print in pythin script. I modified the cfpython plugin to add Crossfire.Log(), changed maps/python scripts that were using print to now use Log() and updated cfpython information on wiki. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20071109/733be0c9/attachment.htm From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Mon Nov 12 12:05:58 2007 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:05:58 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] back from grave In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200711121906.01469.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> > Hello, am back from the grave. Welcome back on board :) > Coming back after lots of month away from crossfire, i took opportunity to > checkout fresh svn. I noticed the "latest" entry in svn, that is not > working. The readme tells it should contains the trunk of various tools. It > did not. Assuming it was a missing commit for svn metadatas from someone, i > added the server / client / maps / sounds / arch / gridarta as external > repositories of latest/ (so now you can just check it out to get trunk of > all tools) Nice, thanks. > I also noticed lack of clarity about disparition of configure script. wiki > give correct procedure, but INSTALL on server does not. I added 2 lines > about autogen.sh there and a link to wiki for details Thanks again :) > After sucessfull compiling and running of server i noticed a few messages > that did not follow the "time [level] message" format of Log(). It > appeared those where generated by calls to print in pythin script. I > modified the cfpython plugin to add Crossfire.Log(), changed maps/python > scripts that were using print to now use Log() and updated cfpython > information on wiki. Sounds ok, thanks for the update :) Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de l'al?atoire !] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20071112/656acf34/attachment.pgp From tchize at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 05:07:58 2007 From: tchize at gmail.com (David Delbecq) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:07:58 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Player creation Message-ID: <473AD70E.7000900@gmail.com> I hope am not raising back an already discussed subject. I came acrros this wiki page: http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/dev_todo:char_creation and made some technical suggestion for whoever implement it. People are free to update, errata or flame my suggestions. I think i pretty kept things simple at protocol & client. I kept basic calculation to easier the comprehension between server and client. As you can see, what client send to server upon player creation is quite basic, it's, i think, even more basic then now with the rollstats and so on :D If i remember well, crossfire 2 protocol is not mandated to stay compatible with old clients, for this i didn't take into consideration backward compatibility with old "HallOfSelection". However, that should not make old players unuseable, just differently created. Regards, David Delbecq From tchize at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 12:17:25 2007 From: tchize at gmail.com (David Delbecq) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:17:25 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Bug tracker item removal! Who did it? Message-ID: <474324B5.3030805@gmail.com> Hello, bugtracker item #1825589 have dissapeared from sourceforge. All sf says me is "item is not accessable". If someone removed the item from tracker instead of closing it, please tell it asap (we all make mistakes from time to time)! If not, that means the worse, sourceforge is losing bug reports, which need to be reported to sf team asap. If no one respond to this email before friday and item does not reappear, i will report to sf team. For information, the bug was https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=113833&aid=1825589&group_id=13833 [ crossfire-Bugs-1825589 ] Cheat bug with containers Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None > >Priority: 7 > Private: Yes Submitted By: AnMaster (anmaster) > >Assigned to: David Delbecq (tchize) > Summary: Cheat bug with containers Initial Comment: Log of reporting this on IRC (in /msg to ryo_) get 2 containers (chests for example) put something in the first one and set it's slaying to some key that don't exist then put the un-openable container inside the other container the stuff in the locked one will get out because you can't have containers with stuff in that are also inside other containers it seems now you can use this to get around not having the key for it It is possible to use this bug to cheat. There are some chests that got the key in some other part of the world in the game (jade chest is the first that comes to my mind) could you also report it to tracker, so we don't forget it? :) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Comment By: David Delbecq (tchize) > Date: 2007-11-20 10:09 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=360461 Originator: NO Shouldn't be that difficult to fix. However, major issue since it allow for cheating From leaf at real-time.com Tue Nov 20 19:28:24 2007 From: leaf at real-time.com (Rick Tanner) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:28:24 -0600 Subject: [crossfire] Bug tracker item removal! Who did it? In-Reply-To: <474324B5.3030805@gmail.com> References: <474324B5.3030805@gmail.com> Message-ID: <474389B8.9060600@real-time.com> David Delbecq wrote: > Hello, bugtracker item #1825589 have dissapeared from sourceforge. All > sf says me is "item is not accessable". If someone removed the item from > tracker instead of closing it, please tell it asap (we all make mistakes > from time to time)! If not, that means the worse, sourceforge is losing > bug reports, which need to be reported to sf team asap. If no one > respond to this email before friday and item does not reappear, i will > report to sf team. > > For information, the bug was > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=113833&aid=1825589&group_id=13833 > [ crossfire-Bugs-1825589 ] Cheat bug with containers It was set to Private (not sure by who or when - likely it was me..) which means that only the person who submitted the bug and project members (when they are logged in) can see it. Since it was a cheat exploit, I would say that is the reason why it was marked as Private. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20071120/908f1ce0/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Sat Nov 17 22:52:29 2007 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:52:29 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] Player creation In-Reply-To: <473AD70E.7000900@gmail.com> References: <473AD70E.7000900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <473FC50D.1070600@sonic.net> David Delbecq wrote: > I hope am not raising back an already discussed subject. I came acrros > this wiki page: > > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/dev_todo:char_creation Going to respond here, as I don't think using the wiki as a discussion forum works out very well. > If i remember well, crossfire 2 protocol is not mandated to stay > compatible with old clients, for this i didn't take into consideration > backward compatibility with old "HallOfSelection". However, that should > not make old players unuseable, just differently created. Correct - protocol incompatibility is allowed. And my personal thought is CF2.0 will/should basically require new characters. If the rebalance changes and different spell skills I'm working with come to fruition, it may not be practical (or fair) to use old characters. Some specific questions/notes: >List of basic informations > How much stat point to distribute > eventually how much credit point to distribute in packs Can you clarify what you mean by credit point to distribute in packs? From reading everything, it sort of sounds like you envision a scheme where players get say 200 points, and use that for stats, classes, races, and perhaps even extending it to better equipment (desirable races/classes may cost points, while most don't cost anything) While that is a reasonable thing to have, I'd think we have to think more about practical implications of that - right now, ideally all races & classes are balanced (although realistically, probably not) - a complication in trying to add costs to some is short term vs long term advantage. If a class or race is superior, starting at level 1, and that superiority lasts through level 100, some extra cost at startup probably isn't a good enough way to balance it. This isn't really a comment on your proposal, but just general food for thought and races & classes - better races or classes need to be balanced in some other way (exp gain penalty most likely) if they are better. > Base Max and Min of each stat > eventually how much stat point at max you can spend, for each stat (could prevent unbalanced/unplayable characters) A question might be whether costs are linear, or really high stats cost more. My personal inclination is costs are linear (a 19 stat costs 19 points, a 3 stat costs 3 points). And while there may be reason to limit what characters can do for balance reasons, I'm not sure if it should be done for playability reason. A character with a 3 strength is likely unplayable, but if someone really wants to try that, I say let them try. The extreme opposite directions, which maybe is presented for newbie players, is player just chooses their race & class, and client (or server maybe) figures out what stats the character should have are. For example, you choose barbarian - in that case, basically put max value in str, dex, con, min value in wis, pow, int, and maybe something in the middle in cha (cha really isn't used much, so could also be min value) The idea of choosing starting equipment packs is a good one, but probably needs some extra support or something - I'd think that ideally you want to provide some information on it in text form, and not a simple list that is derived from a treasure list. --- As a note, when I originally thought of this, I wasn't thinking about changing the overall system much, but rather just how it is done. Main difference is set of points (and not random rolls) to choose stats, but beyond that, the mechanism for race and class adjustments remain the same - after adjustment, no stat can be below 1, and the max for any stat is 20 + race adjustment (+ class adjustment? Not sure if that is factored in or not). I sort of envisioned a mini spreadsheet, something like: Stat Base Race Adj Class Adj Tot Str 14 +2 +2 18 Int 3 0 -4 -1 (in red, to denote illegal value) And so on That sort of covers the issue of min and max stats. Right now, there is no idea of a max stat, other than that derived from adjustments. Now it may be we want to separate those (a fighter gets a -2 pow, yet his max pow is still 20), but that isn't there right now. Hard limits could be put in - in that case, however, I'd think the lowest limit of either class or race would need to apply. But my real thought is that that class really shouldn't affect max stats. It makes some sense to adjust starting stats (a character trained as a wizard probably has a better pow than someone not, through years of apprenticeship), but races make more sense. But there has also been some talk of redoing stats all together (make max stat 50 or something) - in that case, racial maxes may be in the 25-35 range, with 30 being average (for humans), yet starting characters can put at most 20 points into a stat, and thus race & class bonuses boost it up higher. It may be we need to think more about what to do regarding classes, races, and stats, before looking to much into how to create them, as some of those decisions may affect what information is actually relevant and what isn't. From tchize at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 12:41:17 2007 From: tchize at gmail.com (David Delbecq) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:41:17 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] test email Message-ID: <47432A4D.8080301@gmail.com> Just a test to check mailing list delivery to my account, sorry for the noise From tchize at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 02:18:00 2007 From: tchize at gmail.com (David Delbecq) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:18:00 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Bug tracker item removal! Who did it? In-Reply-To: <474389B8.9060600@real-time.com> References: <474324B5.3030805@gmail.com> <474389B8.9060600@real-time.com> Message-ID: <4743E9B8.8090109@gmail.com> Yeah, someone mentionned that on irc 2 minutes after i sent this email, stupidly pasting a confidential bug report on public mailing list :s Anyway, it is fixed and has been backported to 1.x branch. Since bug report is now somehow public by my mistake, server owner should probably upgrade their server version.... En l'instant pr?cis du 21/11/07 02:28, Rick Tanner s'exprimait en ces termes: > David Delbecq wrote: > >> Hello, bugtracker item #1825589 have dissapeared from sourceforge. All >> sf says me is "item is not accessable". If someone removed the item from >> tracker instead of closing it, please tell it asap (we all make mistakes >> from time to time)! If not, that means the worse, sourceforge is losing >> bug reports, which need to be reported to sf team asap. If no one >> respond to this email before friday and item does not reappear, i will >> report to sf team. >> >> For information, the bug was >> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=113833&aid=1825589&group_id=13833 >> [ crossfire-Bugs-1825589 ] Cheat bug with containers >> > > It was set to Private (not sure by who or when - likely it was me..) > which means that only the person who submitted the bug and project > members (when they are logged in) can see it. > > Since it was a cheat exploit, I would say that is the reason why it was > marked as Private. > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire at metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > From tchize at gmail.com Thu Nov 22 05:13:30 2007 From: tchize at gmail.com (David Delbecq) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:13:30 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Music and ambient sound Message-ID: <4745645A.1010808@gmail.com> I started a thread about music and sound creation in crossfire. I think it's time for users to take action and help developpers :) Main developpers are coders, not music artists. http://forum.metalforge.net/viewtopic.php?t=1751 From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Thu Nov 22 11:51:16 2007 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:51:16 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] Music and ambient sound In-Reply-To: <4745645A.1010808@gmail.com> References: <4745645A.1010808@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200711221851.19325.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Le jeudi 22 novembre 2007, David Delbecq a ?crit?: > I started a thread about music and sound creation in crossfire. I think > it's time for users to take action and help developpers :) Main > developpers are coders, not music artists. Note that there *is* server-side support for background music. See http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/dev_todo:functions_implemented_but_not_yet_used#background_music for a short explanation. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de l'al?atoire !] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20071122/553410bb/attachment.pgp From mwedel at sonic.net Wed Nov 28 02:34:23 2007 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:34:23 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] combat notes Message-ID: <474D280F.3060807@sonic.net> I have adjusted basically all monsters up to level 20 or so on my server - adjustments vary, but mostly it relates to HP, speed, exp. I recorded my progress as I went along. The first 5 levels went by quickly - most of the case I only needed 5-10 minutes to get the exp to gain a level. IMO, this is still much too fast - my thought is that 30 minutes would roughly be right (and this time would apply for most all levels - takes 30 minutes from level 1 to 2, and 30 minutes from level 50 to 51). This of course presumes a fairly competent player who knows what to do. Two real ways could be done to adjust this - amount of exp needed per level, and/or amount of exp monsters give. If 2nd level needs 5000 exp (and not the 2000 default), that basically doubles the time. Reducing amount of exp for monsters also fixes this a bit (instead of 15 exp for an orc, if you get 5 exp, that should in theory triple the time). There is some ripple effect to both of these - if 5000 exp was 2nd level, then it would probably go something like 10,000, 20,000, 40k, 80k etc. Most of these times do not include the housekeeping tasks, like collecting the loot, getting it identified, etc. But at the lower levels, that is fairly quick. I spent most of the low levels in the dry well, as that provided a fairly nice progression of monsters. One thing that aids in leveling rate is the generators - simply because I'd often go out and rest to gain hp and then go back in, I fought a lot more creatures than would otherwise fit on the map. The character didn't die until level 6, and that was really carelessness. After doing dry well and clearing it out, I headed into the undercity. That in itself was interesting. While things like kobolds and orcs really didn't pose any danger, they still slowed things down enough to impede movement, so when I got to something dangerous, harder to run away unless I cleared them out first. Also, monsters that spawn on themselves (likes the snakes) are perhaps even more a pain, because it is that much harder to clear out an infestation - I think that is probably a bad thing. Level 6 and 7 were gained much slower, but I think there are a few things. Going into the undercity meant fighting a lot of monsters worth really no exp - if I had went to the ogre cave (nobility quest), probably would have gained things much quicker. Also, looking at the monsters, at some point, there just starts to be gaps of where there are not monsters of certain levels suitable in real numbers anyplace - it is easy to find large numbers of ogres - not so easy to find large number of panthers or serpent men (level 5), or gnomes and pyromaniacs. I did use a bow a little bit - quite effective. It does shoot really fast, so can easily burn through a large number of arrows. I think it may be more appropriate to lower fire rate of bows and increase their damage, just so characters don't need to carry around 1000 arrows (which at low level can be hard to find or actually fairly expensive to by). Maybe a quiver of infinite arrows is needed. Other thoughts: - The dry well, and probably other maps, order monsters in difficulty. But at least in the dry well, pixies are set as the toughest monster on that level, but clearly are not (and the exp and other factors they are worth tend to reinforce that). - I had previously adjusted things so that you gain hp faster when 'resting' than when in combat. I'm thinking that maybe making things so that you gain hp/mana/grace at a very slow rate when not resting, and faster rate when resting, may be interesting. Not sure effect, but it would seem to make it more difficult to wander into heaps of monsters and regen at near the rate they do damage. Rings of regen would still help out regen rate while in combat. - Had a couple nice battles that lasted long enough (and creature doing damage to character), which gave me time enough to wonder who would run out of hp first - my character or the creature - I think that is a good addition (of course, if character hp started getting really low, would probably run away) From antonoussik at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 03:52:37 2007 From: antonoussik at gmail.com (Anton Oussik) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:52:37 +0000 Subject: [crossfire] combat notes In-Reply-To: <474D280F.3060807@sonic.net> References: <474D280F.3060807@sonic.net> Message-ID: On 28/11/2007, Mark Wedel wrote: > I did use a bow a little bit - quite effective. It does shoot really fast, so > can easily burn through a large number of arrows. I think it may be more > appropriate to lower fire rate of bows and increase their damage, just so > characters don't need to carry around 1000 arrows (which at low level can be > hard to find or actually fairly expensive to by). Maybe a quiver of infinite > arrows is needed. Consider adding many different (more powerful) arrows and bows, and adding them as alchemy targets. Try to balance them so that no one above level 10 or so would want to use the stock low level arrows (i.e. a level 10 bowyer should be able to reliably produce an arrow that is better than the default one, without expending much resources/effort). From mwedel at sonic.net Thu Nov 29 01:08:47 2007 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:08:47 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] combat notes In-Reply-To: References: <474D280F.3060807@sonic.net> Message-ID: <474E657F.7070900@sonic.net> Anton Oussik wrote: > On 28/11/2007, Mark Wedel wrote: >> I did use a bow a little bit - quite effective. It does shoot really fast, so >> can easily burn through a large number of arrows. I think it may be more >> appropriate to lower fire rate of bows and increase their damage, just so >> characters don't need to carry around 1000 arrows (which at low level can be >> hard to find or actually fairly expensive to by). Maybe a quiver of infinite >> arrows is needed. > > Consider adding many different (more powerful) arrows and bows, and > adding them as alchemy targets. Try to balance them so that no one > above level 10 or so would want to use the stock low level arrows > (i.e. a level 10 bowyer should be able to reliably produce an arrow > that is better than the default one, without expending much > resources/effort). That sounds correct, but as a first pass (right now), I'm more focused on balancing out the combat stuff. Certainly better arrows, and in larger numbers, are needed. A difference from melee weapons is that arrows tend to get destroyed, so if you had 15 really good arrows, at the end of the battle, you may only have 5, but your nice artifact weapon is just as good as when you start. One that I do have on all of this is that once/if the amount of time it takes to gain a level is sorted out (say that 30 minute time), it gives a starting point for all the other skills. For example, for mages, it may seem slow progress, going in, killing some monsters, coming out, resting, etc. But if that character can also gain levels at the same pace, then that is balanced. And same then applies for bowyer - maybe being a bowyer isn't dangerous, but if the act of collecting goods, going through the refining process and then making an object also takes about 30 minutes to get enough exp to gain a level, that is also in balance. Likewise, a character with a pile of blank scrolls and sp to inscribe a ton of scrolls - if it takes that character 30 minutes, that should also be considered fine. From tchize at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 03:56:08 2007 From: tchize at gmail.com (David Delbecq) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:56:08 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] combat notes In-Reply-To: <474E657F.7070900@sonic.net> References: <474D280F.3060807@sonic.net> <474E657F.7070900@sonic.net> Message-ID: <474E8CB8.1060609@gmail.com> Speaking of throwing objects in general, i don't know if it was adressed in your code, but the movement speed of the throwed object (arrow, dagger, whatever) should not be the same as the speed of the object itself. For example, if a dagger has a speed such that player can attack 3 times per second with it, it certainly should move faster when thrown. 3 squares per/secon is unnatural, the player can run faster than that and take the hit in itself. If a weapon was that slow, it would certainly drop on the ground immediatly (or make a very high balistic curve). I guess a speed factor of 5 or maybe better 10 should be applied to the throwed object. Note that it shouldn't affect the distance the object can travel, that part is correct in current code afaik. What should also be removed in throwed items code is the fact items slows down in the end of movement. It is very unnatural. A dagger reach it's limit range because it drops on ground due to gravity, not because it is slowing down to a halt (that would be the behaviour of a rolling object). I noticed all this when fixing the issue where throwing was not giving correct experience. En l'instant pr?cis du 29/11/07 08:08, Mark Wedel s'exprimait en ces termes: > Anton Oussik wrote: > >> On 28/11/2007, Mark Wedel wrote: >> >>> I did use a bow a little bit - quite effective. It does shoot really fast, so >>> can easily burn through a large number of arrows. I think it may be more >>> appropriate to lower fire rate of bows and increase their damage, just so >>> characters don't need to carry around 1000 arrows (which at low level can be >>> hard to find or actually fairly expensive to by). Maybe a quiver of infinite >>> arrows is needed. >>> >> Consider adding many different (more powerful) arrows and bows, and >> adding them as alchemy targets. Try to balance them so that no one >> above level 10 or so would want to use the stock low level arrows >> (i.e. a level 10 bowyer should be able to reliably produce an arrow >> that is better than the default one, without expending much >> resources/effort). >> > > That sounds correct, but as a first pass (right now), I'm more focused on > balancing out the combat stuff. Certainly better arrows, and in larger numbers, > are needed. A difference from melee weapons is that arrows tend to get > destroyed, so if you had 15 really good arrows, at the end of the battle, you > may only have 5, but your nice artifact weapon is just as good as when you start. > From mwedel at sonic.net Fri Nov 30 02:19:58 2007 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:19:58 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] combat notes In-Reply-To: <474D280F.3060807@sonic.net> References: <474D280F.3060807@sonic.net> Message-ID: <474FC7AE.6010801@sonic.net> So I made some changes to the tavern test server, just to try things out. From before, made these changes: need 5000 exp for 2nd level (and rest of levels are likewise scaled up) reduced exp by monsters less than level 5 by half to 1/3rd old value disabled generators It is an interesting experiencing - turning off generators (I just disabled the code instead of going through and removing them from the maps) changes map focus a bit - in newbie tower, I was perfectly happy letting the monsters come to me since I didn't have to worry about the generators. While I'm still playing a fighter type character, I can certainly seem to alternative play strategies that could open up - if one was playing a thief, luring and killing the occasional orc and then sneaking around to the back would be a potential strategy if there was some nice treasure there. With generators always making monsters, that strategy doesn't really work. The newbie tower, with those adjustments, did not get enough exp to gain a level - got about 3000 exp from it. That also includes the exp for killing generators, which I did not adjust so are some nice bonuses. In the end, it took about 20 minutes of actual fighting/adventuring to gain the 5000 exp for second level (and more like 30 minutes of actual time, including time to sell loot, aborted attempt in dry well after setting off trap releasing earth elementals, etc). That pacing seemed reasonable. I think I'm also getting better/more used to the combat pacing, as it seems like I was able to get through the newbie tower a lot faster than I did before Disabling generator would require a lot of map rework - after aborting on the dry well, I went to the drinking fountain. With the generator popping out monsters, that map was largely empty. Also, because it does effectively reduce amount of killing on a map (with generators, I'd probably kill another 10-25% more monsters on newbie tower), which may mean more people have to hunt through other maps to find monsters to kill. As a note, I'm not suggesting that all generators should be removed - certain maps rely on them (like training centers), but at some level, I think it may make the game more enjoyable without them - often before it would be a case of just a slug fest of whittling the monsters down to get to a reasonable number to then kill the generators - not particularly interesting in many cases. I just disabled them as a quick way to see how it would change the game. From kbulgrien at worldnet.att.net Fri Nov 30 06:36:01 2007 From: kbulgrien at worldnet.att.net (Kevin R. Bulgrien) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:36:01 -0600 Subject: [crossfire] combat notes In-Reply-To: <474FC7AE.6010801@sonic.net> References: <474D280F.3060807@sonic.net> <474FC7AE.6010801@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200711300636.01874.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> On Friday 30 November 2007 02:19, Mark Wedel wrote: > So I made some changes to the tavern test server, just to try things out. > From before, made these changes: > > need 5000 exp for 2nd level (and rest of levels are likewise scaled up) > reduced exp by monsters less than level 5 by half to 1/3rd old value > disabled generators > > It is an interesting experiencing - turning off generators (I just > disabled the code instead of going through and removing them from the maps) > changes map focus a bit - in newbie tower, I was perfectly happy letting > the monsters come to me since I didn't have to worry about the generators. > While I'm still playing a fighter type character, I can certainly seem to > alternative play strategies that could open up - if one was playing a > thief, luring and killing the occasional orc and then sneaking around to > the back would be a potential strategy if there was some nice treasure > there. With generators always making monsters, that strategy doesn't > really work. > > The newbie tower, with those adjustments, did not get enough exp to gain > a level - got about 3000 exp from it. That also includes the exp for > killing generators, which I did not adjust so are some nice bonuses. In > the end, it took about 20 minutes of actual fighting/adventuring to gain > the 5000 exp for second level (and more like 30 minutes of actual time, > including time to sell loot, aborted attempt in dry well after setting off > trap releasing earth elementals, etc). That pacing seemed reasonable. I > think I'm also getting better/more used to the combat pacing, as it seems > like I was able to get through the newbie tower a lot faster than I did > before > > Disabling generator would require a lot of map rework - after aborting on > the dry well, I went to the drinking fountain. With the generator popping > out monsters, that map was largely empty. Also, because it does effectively > reduce amount of killing on a map (with generators, I'd probably kill > another 10-25% more monsters on newbie tower), which may mean more people > have to hunt through other maps to find monsters to kill. > > As a note, I'm not suggesting that all generators should be removed - > certain maps rely on them (like training centers), but at some level, I > think it may make the game more enjoyable without them - often before it > would be a case of just a slug fest of whittling the monsters down to get > to a reasonable number to then kill the generators - not particularly > interesting in many cases. I just disabled them as a quick way to see how > it would change the game. > > > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire at metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire From kbulgrien at worldnet.att.net Fri Nov 30 06:38:27 2007 From: kbulgrien at worldnet.att.net (Kevin R. Bulgrien) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:38:27 -0600 Subject: [crossfire] combat notes In-Reply-To: <474FC7AE.6010801@sonic.net> References: <474D280F.3060807@sonic.net> <474FC7AE.6010801@sonic.net> Message-ID: <200711300638.27697.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> > Disabling generator would require a lot of map rework - after aborting on > the dry well, I went to the drinking fountain. With the generator popping > out monsters, that map was largely empty. Also, because it does effectively > reduce amount of killing on a map (with generators, I'd probably kill > another 10-25% more monsters on newbie tower), which may mean more people > have to hunt through other maps to find monsters to kill. > > As a note, I'm not suggesting that all generators should be removed - > certain maps rely on them (like training centers), but at some level, I > think it may make the game more enjoyable without them - often before it > would be a case of just a slug fest of whittling the monsters down to get > to a reasonable number to then kill the generators - not particularly > interesting in many cases. I just disabled them as a quick way to see how > it would change the game. Don't know if you thought about it, but another option might be to limit how many mobs a generator can produce, and keep the number quite low. I have no idea how difficult that would be... but the quantity might be set in the arch and adjustable in the map. That might reduce the impact to existing maps to the point where rework becomes less of an issue. Just a thought. Kevin From tchize at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 12:51:23 2007 From: tchize at gmail.com (David Delbecq) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:51:23 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] combat notes In-Reply-To: <200711300638.27697.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> References: <474D280F.3060807@sonic.net> <474FC7AE.6010801@sonic.net> <200711300638.27697.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <47505BAB.9000209@gmail.com> Works better with todo link :) http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/dev_todo:fancy_generators From tchize at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 12:50:46 2007 From: tchize at gmail.com (David Delbecq) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:50:46 +0100 Subject: [crossfire] combat notes In-Reply-To: <200711300638.27697.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> References: <474D280F.3060807@sonic.net> <474FC7AE.6010801@sonic.net> <200711300638.27697.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <47505B86.6060806@gmail.com> Dont forget this todo, related to generator refactoring, the limit in time could be added to the list. Imho, the max monsters at a time could already be some solution. Kevin R. Bulgrien a ?crit >> Don't know if you thought about it, but another option might be to limit how >> many mobs a generator can produce, and keep the number quite low. I have no >> idea how difficult that would be... but the quantity might be set in the arch >> and adjustable in the map. That might reduce the impact to existing maps to >> the point where rework becomes less of an issue. >> >> Just a thought. >> >> Kevin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> crossfire mailing list >> crossfire at metalforge.org >> http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire >> From mwedel at sonic.net Fri Nov 30 22:48:20 2007 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:48:20 -0800 Subject: [crossfire] combat notes In-Reply-To: <200711300638.27697.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> References: <474D280F.3060807@sonic.net> <474FC7AE.6010801@sonic.net> <200711300638.27697.kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <4750E794.6030305@sonic.net> Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote: > Don't know if you thought about it, but another option might be to limit how > many mobs a generator can produce, and keep the number quite low. I have no > idea how difficult that would be... but the quantity might be set in the arch > and adjustable in the map. That might reduce the impact to existing maps to > the point where rework becomes less of an issue. From a brief look at the code I did last night when I disabled it, it does seem like it is possible to limit output. First of course is deciding that removing generators is the right thing to do. I'm not 100% sure if that is the case or not (or maybe not removing, but greatly changing them). If it is, I'm not sure if a 1 size fits all change actually works. For example, a case would be made that the newbie tower could just have those generators removed and map is fine - if they produce monsters, really isn't much point. Some maps perhaps have more limited uses - in the dry well, at least given the number of generators and size of the room, if the generator only made 2 monsters, it would fill up the room and be fine. But in the case of the undercity, in some cases there are few generators in a large space, so if those generated 10 monsters each, they may be appropriate. I _think_ generators are much more prevalent at lower levels - there are certainly higher level maps that have generators, but not in the same volume. If redoing/removing generators is decided the right thing to do, I think fixing up the maps wouldn't be that hard - its much easier to fix content on existing maps than make new ones - in the case of the undercity, wouldn't be that hard to go through, remove the generators and add appropriate number of new monsters based on space available, etc. One other argument in favor of removing generators is that it makes the maps more predictable - in some maps, based on how long it takes, you may find that a room deeper into the map is full of a huge number of monsters, and another time if you make a bee-line there, find it is relatively empty. Thus, map difficulty can be highly varies depending on how one plays the game - it perhaps make more sense to come to the decision that if that room should be full of monsters, start the map that way. If there should only be a few, just put a few there. Using generators just changes things in unknown ways. And as said, there are likely to be some cases where generators are still needed - just not that many. It might also be more interesting to make things more realistic/dynamic. For example, instead of having wyvern generators, having the wyverns lay eggs after some amount of time, and then after some amount of time those hatch into baby wyverns, and then after some amount of time, those grow up to be adult wyverns, etc. The time should be considerable - perhaps long enough that one could grab a wyvern egg and get it back to town to do alchemy on it or something. > > Just a thought. > > Kevin > > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire at metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire