[crossfire] Game change proposals

[Mark Wedel]

On 06/14/14 02:17 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> Hello.
>
>
>>    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)
>
> Something like that, yes - you need to use the correct lockpicks in the
> correct order.
>
> So you could have special doors requiring a special lockpick found in a
> special place.

  Makes sense - would the lockpicks be consumed (or perhaps break) on failed 
attempts?  That might be another way to limit special door access - yes, you can 
pick it, but the lockpicks themselves are rare and/or expensive, so may not be 
worth it just for the sake of doing it.


>>    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.
>
> I was thinking of adding a second treasure list to monsters, which contains
> items to drop at death.
>
> Would need to figure how to make steal work, though.

  I had thought of the second treasure list - the problem, is you could get a 
case where the creature is firing arrows at you, but drops something completely 
unrelated.  Other games do that (often getting items completely unrelated to 
what the creature is using), but IMO, it is nicer if what is dropped matches 
what the creature had.

  I know sometimes in crossfire you are fighting something and getting hit by 
some wand attack, and I think 'I want to kill that creature to get that wand'. 
With the proposed system, that might not happen, but would be nice to have a chance.

  So perhaps what could be done is the existing treasurelists modified with 
something like a 'drop_chance' value - if the item is generated, that represents 
that chance that the item actually drops.  At treasure creation time, the item 
could get marked with a flag based on that (I think FLAG_NO_DROP might already 
exist)

  That chance may be low, but at least you have a chance of getting what the 
creature is using.  For stealing, I think only allow items that will drop when 
the creature is killed to be stolen works, so that also fixes that problem.

>
>
>
>>    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).
>
> Yes. On the other hand, it'd make for a nice map review :)

  Right - in some ways, it makes sense to do a bunch of big changes at one time 
for that reason - while reviewing maps for monster density, can also review them 
for doors, 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)
>
> Then the monster isn't that high level, is it?

  I guess it depends exactly how those chances work.  Is it a level comparison + 
random factor?  or you do the attack and it happens?

>
> Or make it so the time the player needs to launch the stun attack is longer
> that the actual stun.

  Yep - some games also have other melee related stats (fatigue, adrenaline, 
etc), and one could imagine that the special attacks cost more fatigue, and 
fatigue only really recovers out of combat - so you could enter combat, do a 
flurry of special attacks, but after that, are basically just left doing normal 
attacks or something.


>>    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.
>
> Yes, radical changes is what I'm thinking of.
>
> There are a zillion hack-and-slash games. So maybe we should try something
> different?

  Maybe - that has always been a bit of challenge - trying to figure out exactly 
what crossfire is or should be.