[crossfire] Platform statement

[Lalo Martins]

quoth Mark Wedel as of Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:40:25 -0800:
>   I find most games that make up new terms for money or other game
> aspects instead of using already well known words just annoying,
> and not really in any way more immersive than those that do use the
> standard words.  After all, everything else in the game is in English
> (or local language of your choice), and to just take out certain terms
> almost seems more noticable than not.

I still don't agree with this... but in a way, I think we're both right 
on different aspects.

Maybe the right solution is to call the coins something other than gold 
and silver, and still keep them in your inventory, BUT also keep a total 
account as you suggested, display that directly in the client, and work 
with that for most sales.

In fact -- and this is coding, not content, so read it as a low-priority 
suggestion rather than a plan -- I think it would be best if buying and 
selling had a separate user interface.

Local currency... I still think it would be cool, but in practise, it's a 
moot point; because I look at the story I'm working on, and really, it 
doesn't make sense to have different currencies there.

>>>> (discussion on tall faces)

I'll leave that one for the coders, although I need a decision before I 
start actually making arches and maps.

However, I'll repeat what I said before: I believe tall faces are already 
implemented, at least partially, and that would make that, by definition, 
a simpler solution than any alternative :-)  (If I'm wrong, then ok... 
but either way it's not up to me.  I'll just make arches and maps using 
any system the coding people tell me to.)

>   As you noted in another messsage, your idea of amount of spaces
> viewable was lower - if 12x12 matches, no problem.  But if you are
> looking for something equivalent of 15x15, then that would require
> protocol changes.

That's a point worth considering.  Again, it's not up to me, though.

>   That part is simple enough to understand.  But how the player gets
> from scorn village is now the question - is the player effectively
> just playing on the zoomed out map?  What about monsters, etc?  And
> does he move faster?

He would not move faster, that's why I wanted movement to slow down
proportionally.  Or then again he could move *a little* faster but not
too much; so if zoom out is 10x and you move the same "apparent"
speed, then you're really moving 10x faster, and I think that's
unfair.  But maybe you could move 2x faster (5x slower apparently), on
the excuse that you're paying less attention to your surroundings.
Combine that with a transport (horse) that moves 3x faster, and you're
moving 6x faster.

Monsters is a good point, I suppose at some point there should be
objects (ground?) that force a zoom out.

But this is getting too deep, and it involves both coding and
content.  So here's what I propose: let's postpone this whole aspect.
I'll start the content on the assumption that there is a single scale
(hugeworld as you say), and if we decide that's unplayable, we think
about how to do zooming and how many levels and what the UI will be.
Even if we end up doing it exactly as I envisioned it, we'll all be
able to fine-tune it better by having actual content to test against.

best,
                                               Lalo Martins
-- 
      So many of our dreams at first seem impossible,
       then they seem improbable, and then, when we
       summon the will, they soon become inevitable.
                           -----
                  http://lalomartins.info/
GNU: never give up freedom              http://www.gnu.org/