[crossfire] Game change proposals

[Mark Wedel]

On 06/12/14 11:35 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> Hello.
>
>
> I'd like to change various things in the game, to make it funnier (IMO) in non
> combat aspects. So here are random proposals.
>
>
>
> 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'm not familiar to the original game, but I'd be careful with anything that 
is too time sensitive.  I'd also like a better idea of what you envision.  Is it 
something like there are 10 (or 20) different lockpicks in the game, and the 
character has to use them in the right order?  Presumably, the lockpick skill 
should still come in to play in some way for this also (amount of time to pick 
the lock, or perhaps some amount of not needing the precise lockpicks or something)

  Of course, lockpicking and doors in general could use a bit of a revamp - too 
much is 'you must do the dungeon in this order, meaning get key A, which lets 
you get key B, etc'.  let those doors be pickable - perhaps they have really 
nasty traps if you don't use the key, or perhaps they are just really tough.

  This might require redesign of some maps (treasure room near the start that is 
protected by a locked door may not be a good idea), but would make more sense.

Another easy thing would be to have most chests locked - the player could bash 
them open, but might destroy the items inside.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 don't mind so much the global experience, and I still like the idea of the 
alchemy skill itself having a level (until you get to level 10, some recipes may 
just not be possible).  But tracking individual recipes and bonus for each seems 
like a fine idea.

  It might also be reasonable that common/simple recipes are globally known (or 
are automatically learned at certain levels), so that the alchemy recipes out 
there are for rare and unusual items.  Otherwise, playing only with in game 
knowledge always seems very difficult.

>
> What about random (ie player-dependant) parameters? You have more success
> during certain hours, or outside vs inside, or...?

  Totally reasonable for different things - one could certainly imagine that 
scribing at a desk should be easier than out in the wilderness.


> Then reduce the dropped items. I mean, so much junk!

  That is a big change, and probably fairly simple to do - most other games do 
this (those creatures may be attacking you with axes, but you don't get all 
those weapons when you kill them).  Likewise, even of the items that are out 
there, one could reasonably ask do we really need the number of different swords 
out there that vary by a minor detail.  I know some games do this, but that is 
more related to skins (this sword looks cool) - with the way crossfire is, that 
really isn't the case.

]
> 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.

  That would be good, but is also a major change - the vast majority of maps 
would need to be refactored (maps with gobs of monsters would just be unplayable).

>
> Then various effects on weapons: stun, knock back, confuse, slow, etc.

  Seems reasonable, though than in itself creates yet different issues (if a 
player can use a weapon effectively enough to constantly keep a monster stunned, 
probably makes for an easy combat)

>
> Reduce the zillion elemental attacks to a lower number (6? 8?), other things
> are side effects.

  Agree - most of those are side effects.  The trickier part on some of those is 
whether resistances should exist and how to then factor them in - the number of 
attacks and number of resistances sort of go hand in hand.  While one could 
certainly come up with different logic to handle those, that solution may just 
be more complicated.

  Note that if you did all the above changes, that is some fairly radical 
changes to the game (attack rate and item drop). Though perhaps the second comes 
from the first - if combat is a lot slower, that would then suggest there are a 
lot fewer monsters, which should then mean a lot lower item drop.