[crossfire] Game change proposals

[Tolga Dalman]

On 06/12/2014 09:08 PM, Kevin Zheng wrote:
> On 06/12/2014 13:35, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>> What about "mini-games"?
> 
>> For instance, instead of a mere lockpicking, you actually have to use the
>> picks in the right order in a limited time to pick a lock - if you fail,
>> you trigger the traps, of course.
> 
>> [bonus points to who knows the old game I'm getting inspiration from :)]
> 
> I like mini-games, and if there were more mini-games I would play Crossfire
> a whole lot more. My schedule no longer allows me to sit down for 4 hours
> straight hacking through a dungeon.
> 
> I think short pickup multiplayer mini-games would be best. A handful of
> single-player games would be good, too.

I agree. Also, some skills are pretty useless right now. This situation
could be alleviated at the same time.


>> What about changing alchemy (including the jeweler etc. variants)?
> 
>> For each formulae you start with a ~3% chance of success. You succeed?
>> Get 3 to 5 points. Failure? Get 0-1 point (failure is a valuable lesson,
>> after all :)). Capped to ~90%. And maybe not giving global experience.
> 
> I'm not sure, I'd need more time/discussion to decide. Currently a lot of
> ingredients are difficult to come by, so I'm afraid this will make alchemy
> too unattractive. This would at least help fix the issue of out-of-game
> knowledge of recipes, though.

Alchemy is right now rather static, so I agree that there should be added
a little bit of randomness. Adding failure/success is one part of the story,
another one could be to create more random item (properties) with alchemy.
Thus, a high-level crafter could create completely new and unique items.

In any case, I'd also like more discussion about the technical details.


>> What about random (ie player-dependant) parameters? You have more success
>> during certain hours, or outside vs inside, or...?
> 
> YES! There should be a certain spot in the world where producing a certain
> recipe yields extra. Or, certain (hard) recipes should depend on the phase
> of the moon. Really, this would encourage alchemists to go explore the
> world for once instead of sit in apartments all day.

Yes, adding more randomness is good. However, I suppose that this could
lead players to exploit these events once they are found out
(which shouldn't be difficult after all).
It should be possible to turn this feature on or off via a server-side
parameter (or compile-time macro), IMHO.


>> Then reduce the dropped items. I mean, so much junk!
> 
> Yes, and make more useful items appear once in a while. This will probably
> require balancing, too.

Yes, please do!

>> Then, slowing (a lot) combat, making it more tactical. Instead of a 
>> zillion monsters, some hard to defeat monsters, where you can use all
>> your skills and items, and attempt various combinations.
> 
> Yes, although I'm not entirely sure how to go about it. Many games that
> have combat involve clicking the enemy you want to kill, killing it, and
> then moving on to the next. I'm not sure if this suits Crossfire.

While I don't actually see a problem with an adapted user interface (e.g.,
the player automatically continues to attack the next enemy in melee),
this idea really changes crossfire. I certainly would appreciate more
"tactical" combats/magic since slaughtering masses of monsters becomes
dull after a time. However, this change includes a lot of work and experimenting
with balancing, modified maps, experience, pantheon, etc.

I do support this if you really are going this way. But my feeling is, that it
will be tough.


>> Then various effects on weapons: stun, knock back, confuse, slow, etc.
> 
> And certain special attacks that take time to recharge, perhaps. But this
> would definitely make other spells more useful.

This makes only sense with the tactial change you proposed above. I like
it :)


>> Reduce the zillion elemental attacks to a lower number (6? 8?), other
>> things are side effects.
> 
> This would make handling special attacks easier.

Sounds good to me.