[crossfire] Project: Slow down combat

[Nicolas Weeger]

>   Maybe everyone just agrees with my brilliant insights :)

More likely, it'll be like every other discussion - people will whine AFTER we 
implement, saying that we could have done this and this :p

>   If the change is such that large area effect spells are not so useful,
> that may not be bad.
>
>   Larger effect spells, like fireball, will still have their uses.  If
> monsters are far away, things like fireball still quite useful (the cone
> spells have a more limited range).  Also, so long as each space of a big
> monster takes damage, large spells still have some advantage there.
>
>   I'm sure these changes will require rebalancing of spells, but that is
> also on the list of things to do, so I'm less worried about spells right
> now, but just trying to keep it in mind.

Or larg area spells could be used for things other than combat - remove trees? 
destroy items? have fun?

>   Right, but if when went the skill approach and wanted the monster to have
> a wc of -3, what level should its skills have?  One nice thing with the
> basic wc, ac, etc attributes is it is very easy - I want it to have a wc of
> -3, so I put 'wc -3' in the monster.
>
>   That said, items the monster picks up can dramatically change things, in
> both armor and WC.  But then that makes things more interesting - not every
> monster is the same difficulty.

Indeed, we should probably keep the monster's specific wc/ac/...
This way map makers can do exactly what they want :)

>   Yes.  But if guidelines/a table is established, that helps out a great
> deal. If I know that a level 10 character has ac/wc/armor/dam if X, then I
> can have a pretty good idea of the stats the monster needs to be a good
> challenge.  And arguably, this shouldn't be that hard to figure out - as
> one plays the game, one records this information and sees what it is.

*nods*

>   that's always the potential.  However, it also depends on difference of
> HP based on level.  If say a level 10 character has 100 hp, and a level 50
> has 500 HP, that is only a difference of 5, so even then, unlikely 1 hit
> will kill a character, since target would be 10 spells for 500 hp damage
> (or 50 dam/spell). That said, things like resistances, slaying, etc, can
> all mix things up.
>
>   that one of the interesting things about giving characters more starting
> hp. If characters start at say 50, and at level 10 have 150, that is a 3
> times improvement, so would still generally take 3 spells from that 10th
> level person to kill that level 1 person.

It's a global discussion, yes - if spells and hp are increased, what will it 
give, and such.

>   Maybe, but I think it would be very boring to play a mage in that case -
> cast a couple spells, maybe not kill anything with them, have to rest to
> regain mana, cast some more spells, etc.  One goal is to balance things
> such that mages and fighters are both fairly equal at all levels, so I
> think low level mages need to be effective.
>
>   With the changes, it may be some different spells are needed - maybe 1st
> level firebolt and the like.

My opinion is that we have too many spells, actually. Small, medium, large 
fireball? I'd rather see one fireball, maybe with possibility to adjust it in 
real time - cast for 1s get a small fireball, cast for 3s get a large one?
Note also that currently, for some spells, it gives a weird delay - it's 
probably faster to cast 5 small healing spells than one medium healing, and 
you get roughly the same amount of hp.

>   I also wonder how much long term impact it has - it seems that at a
> fairly low level, characters will have weapons that do non physical damage
> (eg, fire, cold, electricity, whatever), and at that point, the distinction
> on physical attack types is lost.
>
>   Maybe as part of this, all weapons that do extra attacktypes needs to be
> redone some, so that the damage of the attacktype is minor extra damage. 
> For example, that firebrand may still do mostly physical (slashing) damage,
> but also do some  amount of fire damage.  This greatly changes weapon
> combat, but once again, maybe not a bad thing.

Well, I guess the 'attacktype' can be seen in 2 ways:
* 'absolute' value, ie 3 phy dam + 5 fire dam
* 'proportion' value, ie 5 phy dam + 5% fire + 10% cold, or something like 
that
Ideally, we could have:
* damage dependant on overall level difference, or 'attack' vs 'defense' 
difference? ie you're highly skilled against a low level monster, you'll aim 
for weak spots and do high damage ; you fight a higher level monster, you 
have issues hitting correctly, opponent defends nicely
* damage dependant on 'monster's type', ie mace against skeleton gives high 
damage, sword against skeleton isn't that great
* 'elemental' (fire, cold, ...) damage could be either a proportion of dealed 
damage (ie you hit the monster for 15 phy and 10% fire), or a random value 
(you hit the monster for 12 phy, and randomly for 5 fire). This could lead to 
a greater variety of items.


Nicolas
-- 
http://nicolas.weeger.org [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de 
l'aléatoire !]
-------------- 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/20070923/f34b2046/attachment.pgp