[crossfire] Gameplay notes

[Mark Wedel]

On 09/ 4/10 01:02 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>>    Agree on both of those - I think paralyze would be acceptable if the
>> duration was much shorter (say for 1-5 ticks) - confusion could perhaps
>> last a little longer, but same thing, if it was a short duration, that
>> might be OK.
>
> Paralysis can be as long as is it now, provided it isn't used by low level
> monsters.
> I mean, a gnome level 6 paralysing (that's now removed) is bad for low level
> players :(

  Long paralysis is pretty much annoying at any level - at higher levels if you 
are paralyzed for several seconds of real time, your just stuck there hoping you 
survive - nothing you can do about it.  Not the best experience.

  But being paralyzed for several ticks would still be pretty bad in higher 
level fights - it may mean the first thing you have to do when the paralyze runs 
out is heal yourself.

  If paralyze still lasted a long time at higher levels, I think the immunity to 
paralyze items would continue to be a standard item everyone needs.   I'd 
personally prefer that there not be a standard set of items (or attributes they 
provide), but rather things are balanced such that decisions on items are not as 
clear cut - being immune to paralysis may be nice, but if it just gets me for a 
few ticks, maybe I'd rather have a boost in hp regen and take my chances.

> Another option could be to have "temporary immunity", like you get paralyzed
> 100% of the duration the first time, and if hit in the next 5s only 50%, then
> only 25%.
> This would avoid the "getting paralyzed when you're paralyzed" issue.

  Or maybe just some minimal time (few ticks) where you are immune after the 
effect wears off, so even if paralyze was short, you could never be paralyzed 
more than 75% of the time or something (this would hopefully at least give you 
time to heal up, run away, or put on that resistance to paralysis item)

  I'd also note that currently, confusion, paralysis and drain are really the 
few attacktypes where 100% immunity items for them exists - this sort of 
suggests that even 90% immunity just isn't that great, which may be some 
indication that the attacks are too deadly/annoying.

>>    I suppose the fact you need scrolls adds some use for inscription :)
>
> Yes, but that's actually weird - if I'm confused, what's ensuring I'm reading
> the correct scroll? :D

  That's a different discussion.  Note that at one time, confusion did not 
affect spellcasting, it really only affected movement, so back in those days, 
you could cure confusion yourself and be sure it would work.

>
>
>
>
>>    I also think that there are 'issues' in the way spells also move - it
>> isn't like your character has to make one saving through and is set -
>> because the way cones move, you probably get hit by the spell many times,
>> so are almost sure to be affected.
>
>
> There could be a small immunity / resistance if you avoid the first time.

  I had thought of redoing the way cones/exploding ball spells move - basic idea 
is that instead of a bunch of objects moving and copying themselves to move 
further, one 'master' object is created at the start point (for case of cones) 
or center point (for case of exploding balls) - that master point would then be 
what is called and puts in the new objects on the map based on where last one 
was placed, range, duration, etc.

  Aside from this being much more efficient (there would only need to be one 
spell object per spell per space, vs the many right now), this could also allow 
for nicer looking spell effects - eg, for cones, one could have a 1 space, 2 
space, etc, cone graphic (with potentially smooth transitions between them) and 
that master object updates the graphic in use based on how the cone expands.

  This is a bit simplistic - for the graphics, one could have to figure out how 
to handle walls that may be blocking it (putting the spell effect over the wall 
may not look right).

  But if that was done, then since there would only be one spell object/space, 
only one saving throw would be needed - check for creatures on space when spell 
effect moves there, and do save at that time.  If player moves, one could see if 
they are moving from a space where the effect has already hit - if so, no save 
is needed (they have already done so), if not, save again.

  Some spell effects could perhaps have repeated saving throws - something like 
poison gas should probably cause person to save as long as they are in it.


>>    Yes - the amount of damage it does, and/or the fact that there is no way
>> to repair them.
>>
>>    I think experienced players know the monsters to look out for and use
>> other methods to kill them - but this is probably a real annoyance for new
>> players.
>
> Yes, especially for newbies.
> Solutions could be to have reparation, but that would downgrade the acid's
> value.
> Another option is to use that only on high level maps, or after the player has
> been warned ("you smell something acid").

  Acid, especially at high levels, has been downgraded just on the fact that 
most items are made from either nothing, or something that is immune to the 
effects - that is likely an affect simply because even at high levels, acid is 
really annoying.

  I think best way would be to allow repairs - and make the cost of the repair 
based on the items value - that would suck some money at of higher players.

  Simplest way to do this is not have acid change the object itself (since then 
you don't really know what it was if it was something like a +4 sword), but 
either add a key-value field like 'degradation' or perhaps add a force object to 
the damaged object that indicates how the object has been damaged (eg, ac -2, 
magic -2, armor -20, etc).

  The fix player code would then just look for that and apply changes.  In case 
of degradation key/value, that could be used as a percentage value, which 
reduces the effectiveness of the object, eg, if degradation is 50 (meaning half 
damaged), the damage it does if 50% less, armor it provides is 50% less, etc. 
Something with 100% degradation is useless - does no damage, provides no ac, etc.

  That is probably better than the current system of negatives - it seems 
completely reasonable to me that a sword may do a lot less damage when corroded, 
but should still hit just as well - at some point, it is effectively just a 
club, and thus by default don't have negatives to hit.

>
>
>
>>    I've found in many cases, if you have some amount of healing (or
>> potentially enough food), you can outlast it that way also.  It really
>> depends on how many hp you have when you get hit by it, and how quickly
>> you can get to someplace where you want take any damage other than that of
>> the poison.
>
>
> I don't think that's an issue.
> Though poison could be made more violent for higher level monsters - like lose
>> 100 maximum hp and 5 speed, things like that.

  AD&Dv3 made interesting changes to poison - they do temporary stat damage. 
Same could pretty simply be applied to crossfire - a poison that does 6 con 
damage is going to be something you probably want to cure pretty quickly.  But 
it also means some poisons may be harmless to certain characters, eg, one that 
does 6 power damage may no be of much concern to barbarians.