[crossfire] Crossfire release?

[Nicolas Weeger]

>   Client too old may be reasonable - at some point, the older clients
> really will not work.
> 
>   It isn't feasible of course to test every client with every version of
> the server, and vice versa.  The problem of enforcing versions gets tricky
> - one does not want to force version 1.60 client with 1.60 release, as
> everyone with older clients now have to update right then to play.  But I
> will verify that 1.50 client works properly, and if you are playing older
> than that, probably time to update.

Seems fine to me.

Note there was a character creation bug that prevented creating new characters 
with some versions...




>   Is that suggesting that maybe the java client should be the official
> windows client.

Is that a question? :)

No, I'm not suggesting anything.
But I admit to not having much interest in trying to build the GTK client 
under Windows.


> I haven't looked, so I don't know how easy/hard it would
> be to take the glade file and make the static config file (old method) -
> while less than ideal, if there are issues with windows, that may be one
> approach.

Or find a decent libglade version, I think there exists builds for it.


>   Should perhaps metaserver1 support also get removed from server at same
> time? In that way, the client at least has to be know enough to support
> metaserver2 to play on newer servers (probably not much difference there,
> since that support has been there a while).

Sure. Let's clean old code.



>   Discussion of that probably gets beyond this message - but some of that
> also goes into gameplay and other aspects - I certainly think it would be
> good to have the recipe chains for alchemy be such that one could, through
> alchemy, reasonably get high experience (this would involve making the
> basic recipes much more easy to find or perhaps common knowledge (eg, each
> time you gain a level in alchemy, you learn a recipe for that level).
> 
>   The hard part IMO for quest chains/skill leveling is ideally, you want
> the process of completely the quest to use the skill in question - having
> an alchemy type quest which is to get the liver of the boss monster at a
> bottom of a dungeon is fine, but one really isn't using alchemy (most
> likely) to solve that quest.  A few of those may be reasonable, but I just
> get the feeling that if too many are about, it might start to feel
> somewhat artificial.

Or have a quest in which you need to create via alchemy some specific item, 
requiring you to have a minimum alchemy level. Item that can't be traded, or 
just don't care if a player gets it from someone else.


>   Yes, but I'd almost be tempted that if redoing/adding a lot of graphics
> get looked at, having an larger image set (64x64 base lets say) would be
> nice, but that probably gets into the dreamworld below.

I'd suggest either some vector-based solution, or why not 3D models - at 64x64 
for base tiles, I hope you can start to do nice things :)



>   I suspect that within maps which do set item power, it hasn't been done
> consistently accross the board - mapmaker A's maps are consistent, but
> mapmaker B may use a higher basic item power than A.

Yup.
So a whole revision of that is in order. As well as for artifacts.





Nicolas
-- 
Mon p'tit coin du web - http://nicolas.weeger.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20101122/06448d0a/attachment.pgp