[crossfire] What about a gameplay revolution?

[Nicolas Weeger]

>   If the human players were spending bunch of time doing calculations (like
> in live action games), then simplifying such things may make more sense.

That is the point, I think: a fun game isn't a calculation game. So why put 
calculations we don't need? :)

>   Likewise, if the game was much more an adventure game, then maybe not
> having stats would make more sense (by adventure game, I mean games where
> the focus is on exploration and solving puzzles, like say myst, and not
> killing things).

Maybe that's somethine we should consider - remove some hack&slash aspect, 
make the game more strategic, have more time to think about what you want to 
do next.

>   I'm also not sure if removing stats would help out in your dragon example
> - the real problem in many cases when you first go to fight something is no
> idea how powerful it is.  In many cases tough monsters can be found in
> areas with much weaker monsters.

Then that needs to be fixed :)

>   I think WC is the only thing that violates that rule, correct?  And the
> reason it does so is because it was based on the old AD&Dv1 version of
> THACO/AC (or so I believe).  I'll note that AD&Dv3 actually fixed that -
> higher the AC, the better.  Likewise, the idea of WC basically went away -
> instead, you just have a bonus to hit.  Ends up being very simple - if d20
> + to hit >= AC, you hit.
>
>   Making that change in crossfire is IMO a good idea and would be really
> easy to do - one could easily enough write a script to go through and
> replace wc X with hit_bonus 20-X (with the script doing the calculation). 
> Likewise, a similar change for AC could be done (new_ac = 20-X)

Actually, I was more thinking like: if attack == defense, 50% chance to hit. 
Attack > defense => more than 50%, capped to eg 90%. Attack < defense => less 
than 50%, capped to eg 10%.
Maybe not linear progression, but that can be adjusted (and 50% is some value 
I didn't think about, can be adjusted).

Also, you could have 'sword +1' => +5 bonus to attack, or +10, something like 
that.


>   Agree.  Too often in maps/quests, the final reward is some artifact type
> weapon.  It would be more interesting if these were components or pieces to
> make up really good weapons.  And ideally give out very few static rewards
> (meaning that you always get item X from some quest - make it a treasure
> list of maybe 10 different items, etc)

What about something like you need to do 10 quests to have all pieces needed 
for a powerful weapon? Each quests only gives one piece of the weapon, 10 
needed.
But that still doesn't address the issue of map camping or leveling up.

>   I don't know if the problem is so much the amount of loot, or more the
> lack to spend it on anything.
>
>   I know there are some exceptions - guild houses go up for auction, and
> you can spend lots of money if you want your apartment a big bigger or
> quick exits to different maps.  But even many of those are one time upfront
> costs.
>
>   At some point in my adventuring, I just don't find anything in the shops
> to buy very often - I've gotten all the spells, the likelihood of actually
> finding any decent items in the shops is low.  So that money just piles up.
>
>   I think that is really the problem - unless there are more useful ways to
> spend money (needed for adventuring gear) it just accumulates.

Many things can be thought of. Apartment rent. Weapon/armor reparation. 
Potions to buy, or ingredients. Or lessons to level up or improve a skill.

>   How do you handle dungeons?  Once someone does the goblin quest map, no
> one can ever do it again (who is going to repopulate it with monsters, etc)

Have some algorithm regenerate the map at some point, in a different shape?
Mostly, make the world dynamic, with population variations and such (you 
trashed many orcs? hard for them, not many to see around - will become again 
visible later on).

>   One could perhaps make more of the maps persistent on a per player basis
> (basically store them as per unique maps).  So each player could only
> complete certain maps once.
>
>   What I don't know how to do in that cases is parties where someone has
> done a map and other folks haven't (or suppose it is a big party, and
> several folks have explored a map to some degree).  Clearly parties should
> be able to explore the same map if they wanted to.


Yes, there's the party issue. IMO we should improve a lot how party work, to 
make it funner too.



I think one current aspect of the game is 'everyone wants to be a hero'. If we 
want to keep this, of course we need to level up or such. If on the other 
hand we want something else, then maybe not everyone needs to be a hero :)



One other point that was briefly discussed on the list: currently we lack a 
content and gameplay leader (not necessarily the same person, but well, maybe 
easier).
Basically we need someone who can drive the game in some direction, and decide 
things ("yes, those maps are great, accepted", "could you add some more 
background story, please?", "no, those maps don't feel at all the spirit, 
rejected", "this item is too powerful and needs adjusting").

I'll admit I don't really feel qualified for this role, as I'm not totally 
sure of what I want the game to be :)
(but I could think of some things).
But IMO we definitely need someone, else we'll just not go anywhere, the game 
will be a disparate assembly of various parts without coherence.


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: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20081215/780bf33b/attachment.pgp