headers
Mitch Obrian | 1 Dec 2005 01:02
Picon
Favicon

Re: Crossedit strips out shop headers (could somebody fix?)

/me checks his paystub.
"Crossfire INC, Nigeria"

They swear the payments will be sent to my bank
account next month... every month :(.

(:P)

--- Nicolas Weeger <nicolas.weeger@...> wrote:

> > bump
> 
> Hey please remember we're all volunteers here :)
> We need time to fix things, sometimes a week or
> more.
> 
> Nicolas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> crossfire mailing list
> crossfire@...
>
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
> 

		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. 
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mark Wedel | 1 Dec 2005 06:59
Favicon

Re: Crossedit strips out shop headers (could somebody fix?)

Mitch Obrian wrote:
> Mine isn't the latest CVS, CVS doesn't compile on my
> laptop system anymore so Cave had to compile it for
> me. Could you test changing some things in the map and
> saving? It might strip it out then?

  Then update to latest CVS, as it works there.  Running old versions, 
especially those that predate changes, is sure not to work.

  I did load a map, make a change, and save it, and headers were intact.

  If you're going to report bugs, please make sure you are running CVS first, or 
at least try it on CVS.  After all, the problem is only going to be fixed in CVS 
anyways, so you're going to have to figure out someway to get CVS working if it 
was in fact broken.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mark Wedel | 1 Dec 2005 07:04
Favicon

Re: Set traps skill (please make it server config-able (on/off).

Mitch Obrian wrote:
> The set traps skill is currently inopreative because
> idiot nebs on metalforge (or whatever the big server
> was in the 1.0 days) killed themselves with it because
> they were retarded morons.

  That is actually 100% false.

> 
> This should be made into a server variable in the
> config file
> by default it will be off
> 
> settrapsskill off (or 0)
> 
> but a server admin (such as me with Cat2) could set it
> on if desired (this is something my users want).

  The reason it isn't on is that the person that wrote that code wasn't 
particularly satisfied with the code in many areas .  So he is the one that 
disabled it, or perhaps to a better point, it was never finished.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Anton Oussik | 1 Dec 2005 09:36
Picon

Re: alchemy ideas (was: Idea for skills)

On 28/11/05, Mark Wedel <mwedel@...> wrote:
> Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> > Btw, it could be used for "secondary" skills (alchemy, woodsman, ...)
> > skills only, not main combat ones. This way no penalty for
> > fighters/wizards, just for players wanting to do other things than combat :)
>
>   But I then wonder if an actual cap on exp/skills is needed, or if it would be
> good enough to give exp bonuses in specific skills for specific quests.

Now that you say it, it seems like a plausable idea. Alchemy,
woodsman, etc. are all closer to knowlege than to something else, so
players can level in them like they do with academic subjects in real
life.

At the moment the main problem with it is:
Eiher it is very very tedious to level, and takes many months to get
to making simple potions, as you try to stockpile some ingredients,
then eventually after dying several times and spending several
thousand on extra ingredients, cauldron access, etc, make something
that is cursed, and costs 4 platinum to sell.
Or you can spend a few very tedious days iding altar ingredients and
get to the point of making something usable.

First approach is far too boring for anyone to seriously consider, and
I think second approach is a cheat in a way, and needs substantial
financial backing.

Either way there is not much incentive to do so apart from selling the
items for wealth, as by the time you can make the items you can either
find them in dungeons, or can afford to buy them in shops.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mitch Obrian | 1 Dec 2005 19:03
Picon
Favicon

drop_food_level

Has the drop_food_level 'uservariable' (is that what
it is called?) been implemented?

		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. 
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Nicolas Weeger | 4 Dec 2005 18:41
Favicon

Tweaking alchemy

Hello.

I'd like to extend alchemy-like skills, probably with a 'cooking' skill.

What i'd like to do is:
* add a way for formulaes to never blow up, and just yield a specific
item when failed ('burnt cake'). This will make it safer and more fun,
of course this would be for low exp recipes (or for a skill having a low
skill => overall percentage)

* add a 'min_level' for a recipe, which you couldn't do if you're not
high-level enough (or with a *really* low probability). Just to feel the
meaning of 'experience' :) And to prevent just trying a high exp recipe
over and over again.

* then i'd like to add food-related recipes, like pizzas (yummy!),
bread, cakes, things like that. Of course i'll add matching archetypes.
And thinking of making use of 'keycode' field and using quests to learn
recipes.

Unrelated to alchemy, but I'm thinking on using the 'on_apply_yield'
field to eat (apply) food by parts (cake => 3/4 of cake => half cake =>
1/4 of cake => nothing).

Comments, suggestions?

Ryo
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Andrew Fuchs | 4 Dec 2005 22:39
Picon

Re: Tweaking alchemy

On 12/4/05, Nicolas Weeger <nicolas.weeger@...> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'd like to extend alchemy-like skills, probably with a 'cooking' skill.

Aaronf0 said he would work on a more dynamic alchemy system, however,
I have no idea if he has even started it.

> What i'd like to do is:
> * add a way for formulaes to never blow up, and just yield a specific
> item when failed ('burnt cake'). This will make it safer and more fun,
> of course this would be for low exp recipes (or for a skill having a low
> skill => overall percentage)

I think this has been needed for a long time.  Though IMO the
distinction between recipes that can be fatal should be made on the
premises that the recipe has some magical quality to it.

> * add a 'min_level' for a recipe, which you couldn't do if you're not
> high-level enough (or with a *really* low probability). Just to feel the
> meaning of 'experience' :) And to prevent just trying a high exp recipe
> over and over again.

If a level 1 player tries a level 110 recipe repeatedly, maybe give
him a few warnings, if he ignores those kill him if the recipe is
magical.

> * then i'd like to add food-related recipes, like pizzas (yummy!),
> bread, cakes, things like that. Of course i'll add matching archetypes.
> And thinking of making use of 'keycode' field and using quests to learn
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Mark Wedel | 5 Dec 2005 02:09
Favicon

Re: Tweaking alchemy

Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> I'd like to extend alchemy-like skills, probably with a 'cooking' skill.
> 
> What i'd like to do is:
> * add a way for formulaes to never blow up, and just yield a specific
> item when failed ('burnt cake'). This will make it safer and more fun,
> of course this would be for low exp recipes (or for a skill having a low
> skill => overall percentage)

  I wonder if instead of just having that be a flag, have some fields like 
'danger_potential' or 'blowup_chance' or something?

  Thus, you could have potentially very complicated recipes that are safe but 
hard to do, and could have other recipes that aren't really complicated, but if 
you mess up, would be quite dangerous.

> 
> * add a 'min_level' for a recipe, which you couldn't do if you're not
> high-level enough (or with a *really* low probability). Just to feel the
> meaning of 'experience' :) And to prevent just trying a high exp recipe
> over and over again.

  Reasonable.  But when doing so, it should be clear what the diff and exp 
fields then mean - are the based on overall level, thus something with 
difficulty 20 but min_level 50 then easy?  Or does the diff scale from what the 
min level is, such that 'diff 20' corresponds how hard the recipe is if above 
min level (thus, a diff 20 min level 50 recipe would effectively be very hard, 
as at level 50, it is still a diff 20).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Anton Oussik | 5 Dec 2005 02:35
Picon

Re: Tweaking alchemy

On 04/12/05, Andrew Fuchs <fuchs.andy@...> wrote:
> On 12/4/05, Nicolas Weeger <nicolas.weeger@...> wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I'd like to extend alchemy-like skills, probably with a 'cooking' skill.
>
> Aaronf0 said he would work on a more dynamic alchemy system, however,
> I have no idea if he has even started it.
>
> > What i'd like to do is:
> > * add a way for formulaes to never blow up, and just yield a specific
> > item when failed ('burnt cake'). This will make it safer and more fun,
> > of course this would be for low exp recipes (or for a skill having a low
> > skill => overall percentage)
>
> I think this has been needed for a long time.  Though IMO the
> distinction between recipes that can be fatal should be made on the
> premises that the recipe has some magical quality to it.

Seems like a sensible idea, and one that is easy to implement.
However, you need lots of new foods archetypes (and corresponding
graphics), as these formulae should have normal food ingredients as
ingredients, so you now need flour, tomatoes, ham, milk, cheese (made
from milk), and so on.

This could also be a good time to include a farming skill.

Milk can be mined from a cow, and flour can be obtainable by using
some wheat in a mill, and wheat can be collectable growing in fields
(gaining the person some farming exp) and plantable using the farming
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Brendan Lally | 5 Dec 2005 03:46
Picon

Re: Tweaking alchemy

On 12/5/05, Anton Oussik <antonoussik@...> wrote:
> This could also be a good time to include a farming skill.
>
> Milk can be mined from a cow,
...
> Milk can also use farming skill, and I guess one would get better at
> it with practice, and be able to milk more milk from a cow if you are
> good at farming.
...
> Farm animals should be
> able to asexually reproduce over time

This seems quite distinct from 'real' farming.

The amount of milk a cow will give is mainly based on things like
diet, breed and stress, as well as how thoughly they have been milked
before. ( if you care,
http://classes.aces.uiuc.edu/AnSci308/factorsaffecting.html is quite
interesting). It will not noticably increase with level. What might
happen is that the milking time would drop (mechanised milking is
faster than manual milking, although one assumes that the former
wouldn't be present in crossfire).

If there were a standard unit of milk (I would favour the quart here,
which is about 100 squeezes of a cow's udders - a nice round number)
then you could simply define the time it takes to get that to vary
with level, from 2 minutes or so at level 1, down to 10 seconds or
thereabouts at level 100.

in any case, farm animals do not asexually reproduce. - certainly in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |

Gmane