[crossfire] Platform statement

[Mark Wedel]

Lalo Martins wrote:
(various bits snipped here and there)
> Gameplay
> ========
>
> For combat with enemies about your level, I think mwedel's
> changes did the trick, at least for fighters (ie not
> magic-users).  I like non-magic combat on trunk.  On top of that
> I'd put a stronger focus on damage types, so you'd put more
> work/thought into getting a weapon that can do the work and/or
> armour that can keep you alive.  Add more items with damage
> types, maybe add another damage type or three.  (But careful not
> to turn the game into Pokemon.)

Like so many things done in crossfire, the discrete damage changes is something 
that was never followed up to fruition.

  For reference, the non discrete damage would be something like:
attacktype physical | fire
damage 12

  Where when that hit  a creature, it would hit it with those 2 attacktypes, and 
use whichever one would do more damage.  The discrete damage type was like:

dam_physical 8
dam_fire 6

  Which says this item could do 8 points of physical or 6 points of fire.  One 
thing which I don't think was ever really clear if that was an AND (physical + 
fire) or OR (physical or fire).

  The old system (attacktype) was OR logic.  IMO, the AND logic makes more sense 
- you can have a flaming sword that does a fair amount of phyiscal and a lesser 
amount of fire.

  I'd make a strong case that every 'attacktype' line get removed and replaced 
with appropriate discrete damage name.  The complication here is that if we do 
use AND logic, automatic conversion isn't as easy (but for items with only 1 
attacktype, still would be).

  The entire magic attacktype is also odd, because for lots of things it is used 
to denote a magical affect (thus magic resistant creatures take less damage). 
Maybe we just do away with that logic?

  Getting rid of the attacktype would also just be a nice code cleanup - don't 
need to handle that code anymore.

  As far as new attacktypes - are you talking physical types, or other ones? 
For physical, the mix of slashing/blunt/piercing is popular.  For characters, it 
clear adds more variation and decisions (skeletons should have very high 
resistance to piercing, less to slashing, and none to blunt).  Likewise, 
different armors the character wears should have direct benefits - some would be 
better against certain attacktypes than others.

> 
> An important point that was raised in the list is that when you
> meet something way above your level, it should hurt you badly but
> not kill you instantly, so you can run away.  Of course if the
> monster is TOO MUCH above your level (let's say 4x to keep
> consistent with the definition of extra), then it's reasonable
> that you die without ever knowing what hit you.

  That's reasonable.  I'd make a strong case that in general, it should be 
difficult for characters to wander into places in which the enemy is 4x your 
level (low level dungeons are sort of an exception - if you're level 2, 4x is 
level 8 - not as unreasonable, as level 10 vs 40)

  I think the slower combat has helped this out already - monsters generally do 
less damage per hit, so less likely one hit will take a character out, unless 
there is a real high level difference.


> What I think the gameplay lacks most in 1.x is goals.  That's one
> of the two things that make Pupland such a classic; there's
> always a next quest, there's always something more to keep you
> going.  By the time the whole thing is over, you're so high level
> that you can think of things to do on your own.  So, either an
> overall meta-quest or a general, social push are a must.
> Otherwise you don't really have a reason to come back to the game
> other than "it's fun".

  I agree that more goals are needed, and this can also help change the H&S 
focus - some goals may not be kill everything in a dungeon, but rather get some 
item, transport and item, etc.

  Goals could also help to move players along - get higher level players out of 
scorn and into other cities as that is where goals/quests appropriate for their 
level is now located.


> Generally I tend to go with Nicolas' idea of making the world
> truly dynamic and persistent.  But Pupland proper becomes
> impossible with that; how many people can rescue one king?
> Although considering the nature and end of the quest, it's still
> possible, with a few tweaks.

  I'm not completely adverse to this idea, but I think it needs to be fleshed 
out more.  How do you deal with those goals/quests when the dungeon(s) related 
to them might have been cleared out.  How fast does stuff repopulate, etc.  As 
said before, my biggest concern is that the various maps are cleared out and 
haven't been repopulated.

  At some level, that isn't much difference than right now with maps and reset 
times - on active servers, you can get a case where many of the maps have not 
reset yet, and that can be fairly frustrating - more so for low level characters 
who may not have as many choices as high level characters.

> 
> Another important point: I want to make level progression a lot
> slower.  Not the actual gaining of levels, but what that means;
> how fast your SP pool, HP pool, etc increase, things like wc (or
> whatever Nicolas replaces it with); and also, make permanent stat
> increases a lot harder, so that you only reach "perfection"
> typically at level 100 or so.

  I don't really see much problem with that.  Note that the balance work I've 
already done with melee combat presumes a certain level of WC, AC, and HP 
progression - if those are drastically altered, it may mean all that stuff has 
to be rebalanced (not that it can't be done, just want to raise that point)

> 
> I don't know... strongly tempted to kill overall level entirely.
> What is it really good for anyway?  I like the concept of item
> power, but I'd replace it with something you get from quests.

  Overall level isn't used for much.  Item power.  Hit points.  That's about it 
I think.  Overall exp is still used to record your score.

  For hit points, it could be done away with.  Why should one necessarily get a 
big blob of hit points every level, and nothing in between?  Historically, this 
has been because you got a random number of hit points per level.

  But it would be simple enough to change it to some basis where you get 1 HP 
and these different points.  But see note above about impact of changing HP.

> 
> Loot and money
> --------------
> 
> I agree there is too much loot; in the beginning of the game you
> never have enough money, and after a few levels you have too much
> and not enough ways to spend it.
> 
> Here's how I see solving it, suggestions/comments welcome:
> 
> - Reduce treasure-type loot.  Less gold and expensive stuff in
>   dungeons, less artifacts.  (I like the idea of finding a
>   *component* of an artifact...)
> 
> - Equipment-type loot (eg orc swords) makes sense to me.  I'd
>   make them even cheaper though.  Also selling flesh shouldn't
>   give you that much money (I usually get my non-dragon
>   characters started basically with selling livers).

  I often thought that all flesh should basically have a timer (like the demon 
ichors) - they only are 'fresh' for so long, then become rotting, and then 
eventually disappear entirely.

  But most flesh should really be of very little value.  If it isn't used for 
some recipe, it really has no value beyond its food, so why would someone pay 
much money for it?

> 
> - Change the money system.  I think calling coins "gold" and
>   "silver" is a weird and contrived fantasy trope; historically,
>   all nations either used currency with actual names, or
>   item-for-item trading (salt was particularly popular).  A gold
>   coin should be worth a lot and you shouldn't see one until
>   level 20-something.  So, the server's internal money unit will
>   become some worthless new coin, let's call it a "forkee".  If
>   you care about that, let's say it's made of tin or nickel.  The
>   lowest coin actually used is the bronze "aytbit".  Then next
>   comes the thing people actually trade mostly in (for trivial
>   stuff), let's call it a "cleekin" (heavy brass).  Then comes
>   the copper "reggry" in which most people's salaries are paid.
>   The silver "new imperial", gold "skuddie" and platinum "khelon"
>   are the money of rich people, more similar to today's diamonds
>   than jade/amberium.  (If that system isn't sufficient for the
>   "rich" half, there could easily be different-sized silver and
>   gold coins.)

<much more about money deleted>

My quick thoughts:
Changing the name doesn't really change value.  If silver is replaced with 
bronze piece, and gold with copper, etc, that doesn't really do much to change 
actual wealth, all that really changes is what we call it.

The one advantage of a revaluation is that maybe there are still coins for 
really high value stuff instead of using gemstones, etc.

I'd strongly suggest a decimal system be used (10:1 or 100:1 ratios).  I really 
don't want to have to be doing 64:1 multiplication to try and figure out values 
of different items.

I certainly do think value of many items does need to be re-evaluated.  Note 
that internally, a general 'value' is used - the meaning of that to coins is a 
different piece of code.

I had suggested at one time that instead of actually having all those coins 
about (and extra code to deal with it), a characters money is just another 
attributed like hp or exp.

I'm also not fond of regional currencies.  While realistic, this tends to just 
become more of a bother to players to go in and exchange currency than actually 
adding much.  Now maybe you have some special quests (someone will only take 
regional currency or something), but have to keep in mind point is to have fun 
and not get bogged down in details of real world economics.


> Setting
> =======
< much about reboot removed>
 >
> I'll (mostly) keep the existing pantheon, and elements that are
> homage to past developers well either be kept or reworked; the
> first city around which the reboot will groww will still be
> called Scorn and founded by Skud.
> 
> I'll write something up the next few days.

  Am interested in seeing that write up.  Do you envision doing all new maps 
them?  Including new world, new cities, etc?

> 
> Visual
> ======
> 
> I think we badly need new faces, but the whole redesign project
> was based on the premise that Yann was going to, if not draw all
> of them, at least enough to motivate other people.  I'm not a
> graphics artist and I can't promise the same, so unless someone
> steps up, I think this subproject will have to be shelved.
> 
> WRT how to do it, I like the "tallworld" idea: don't increase the
> face size to 64, rather make the objects use more cells, which
> would reduce the "klunky" feel of the gameplay.  I'd even go so
> far as reducing the cells to 16 or 8 pixels.
> 
> So here's the plan:
> 
> - Facesets can have different pixel-per-cell sizes.  I think
>   that's already the case, right?

  Sort of.  While different facesets can have different sizes, I'm not sure if 
the clients actually use that information or not.

> 
> - "Rebootworld" will start with current faces, but 4 pixels per
>   cell and "tall faces".  So we can design better arches,
>   especially buildings, without drawing anything.  That will kind
>   of kill smoothing, I guess, but we'll see how it goes.  (I
>   don't know if smoothing + tall faces has been though of yet...)

  If I follow this right, it does mean that in many cases, the number of objects 
would need to be increased considerable.

  I gather that in the context above, a cell would be equivalent to a map space 
(otherwise, we don't get anything be subdividing it). So while we now have each 
cell use 32x32 pixels, the basic idea is divide that cell in 64.

  Such a major division is likely to have many impacts on map handling.  I think 
further investigation is needed.

  Certainly subdividing is a good thing, and does make for a smoother 
interface/look.  I just think impact/way to do it needs some additional details.

> 
> - Then a new "Enhanced" tileset will be started, using 12
>   pixels per cell.  (Hey, no reason to keep to powers of 2.)
>   This will grow as fast as it does.  Anyone who feels
>   adventurous is free to start their own tileset.

  A reason to keep a power of 2 is that it allows rescaling of existing images 
with fewer artifacts.  That said, if going from 4 to 12, that is a clean multiple.

> 
> - A benefit of keeping the "basic" tileset around is that it
>   would probably look good on a small-screen client (mobile
>   phone, NDS, PSP, netbook).

  How big of a viewable areas do you envision the client to display?

  For example, existing client supports up to 25x25, and I think the jxclient 
uses 25x19.  From quick calculations, it would seem that increase the detail by 
a factor of 3 will result in either less cells being viewable, or in almost all 
cases, the end user actually downscaling the images.

> 
> Technical
> =========
> 
> See in "Gameplay" for comments on combat system and leveling up.
> 
> I'd like to request two huge features that I think would improve
> the feel:
> 
> Re-hauled movement UI
> ---------------------
> 
> Moving around with arrows only is so last century!  I'd like PCs
> to have basic pathfinding, so you can click where you want to go
> and the character will get there.

  Yes.  Monsters should also use that, as could AI NPCs.

> 
> Then of course, I found that people expect that clicking on a
> monster will attack it.

  This would be more useful for directional attacks - I shouldn't need to be 
perfectly lined up on a monster to shoot an arrow at it - if it is one space 
over, I should still be able to do so (and likewise, it to me)


> True multi-scale
> ----------------

  One time in the past, someone toyed with the idea of there not being multiple 
scales - there is just one scale.  You don't enter buildings, but rather they 
are just there on the map.

  That idea has some appeal to me, especially for towns - then everyone is 
logically on the same map (so you'd see other players about more, etc).  I don't 
know if that is something you considered, or how it would work out, but if 
you're going to do a completely new world...

> 
> This is really two different features on the server side:
> 
> - All movement is slowed down proportional to the "scale"
>   attribute of the map.  (If you think moving 10x slower on the
>   city than indoors is annoying, bear in mind you'll probably
>   move a little faster indoors, and outdoors you'll have
>   transports, which I want to use more heavily.)

  This doesn't appeal to me much, and probably not much to other people.  I 
remember when we went from smallworld to bigworld, some people complained about 
how long it took to get from one town to another (which is still just a minute 
or two if you know where you're going)

  But this also comes down to if there is anything happening outdoors.  In 
crossfire, the outside travel is generally safe.  So if it takes me 5 minutes to 
go from one town to the next, and nothing at all happens in that 5 minutes, that 
is just a waste of time for me.  So if you're going to do this, monsters or 
something has to be happening on that.

  Flip side might be to have some fast travel mechanism if you have been to a 
place before - if I've been to navar city, I can get there near instantly.  If I 
haven't, I need to start walking.

> 
> - Objects can have different faces depending on the "scale"
>   attribute.  I suppose if there isn't a match a default could be
>   used.  Those faces can have different (cell) sizes.
> 
>   That doesn't mean you'd look 10x smaller outdoors, but a little
>   smaller.  Then I'd go for making the "enhanced" tiles 16 pixels
>   rather than 12.

  Is it worth it to have different faces, or just have the client do rescaling?

  My concern here is that making up lots of images is a big resource sink.  I've 
seen it through 2 times (from XBM to XPM, and then from 24x24 to 32x32 image 
size).  In both of of those cases, an automatic conversion is done as the first 
pass, but cleanup/colorization is needed to make them proper.

  From what I've seen above, I see a lot of 'new images' needed.  I'm not sure 
how much work gros has done - maybe there isn't a lot left to do.  But at some 
point, I start wondering if instead of having folks work on 3 or 4 new different 
image sets if that effort wouldn't be better focused elsewhere (like having 
those folks make maps).

> 
> The rationale here is that we're trying to make both movement and
> window size work for what are two almost entirely different
> games; dungeon exploring is one thing and requires one UI,
> walking around the city or road or forest is something else.

  I don't know - I personally don't really have much problem with 2 different 
games/scales.  Maybe that is just me.  The UI needs are perhaps more different 
based on the action - selling items needs a different interface than when I'm 
adventuring.

  The one thing I can think of here is that in many dungeons, amount of spaces 
visible will be less than outdoors, and thus some larger scale is desired (we 
still want to fill up the screen, but since there are fewer spaces, each image 
would be bigger).  I think we'd need to look at more of the dungeons - many 
dungeons have a problem where the rooms and hallways are too small, making it 
hard for people to party together.  If this is revamped, so hallways are 
generally 3+ spaces wide and rooms 10-15 wide, now you're back in the case where 
you are filling up a good portion of the screen with dungeon views.

> 
> We could even go back to Smallworld ways and use 3 scales rather
> than two, I'll put that up for discussion.

  The problem I had with smallworld is that it was just too small - it started 
to get to the point that with the number of dungeons, there was one almost every 
5 spaces - it just didn't feel that good.

  As noted above, I'd almost go to the other direction - the hugeworld.  Maybe 
it does take you 30 minutes to get from scorn to navar city - I don't have a 
problem with that, so long as I can save along the way.