headers
Mark Wedel | 1 Dec 2007 05:48
Favicon

Re: combat notes

Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote:

> Don't know if you thought about it, but another option might be to limit how
> many mobs a generator can produce, and keep the number quite low.  I have no
> idea how difficult that would be... but the quantity might be set in the arch
> and adjustable in the map.  That might reduce the impact to existing maps to
> the point where rework becomes less of an issue.

  From a brief look at the code I did last night when I disabled it, it does 
seem like it is possible to limit output.

  First of course is deciding that removing generators is the right thing to do. 
  I'm not 100% sure if that is the case or not (or maybe not removing, but 
greatly changing them).

  If it is, I'm not sure if a 1 size fits all change actually works.  For 
example, a case would be made that the newbie tower could just have those 
generators removed and map is fine - if they produce monsters, really isn't much 
point.

  Some maps perhaps have more limited uses - in the dry well, at least given the 
number of generators and size of the room, if the generator only made 2 
monsters, it would fill up the room and be fine.

  But in the case of the undercity, in some cases there are few generators in a 
large space, so if those generated 10 monsters each, they may be appropriate.

  I _think_ generators are much more prevalent at lower levels - there are 
certainly higher level maps that have generators, but not in the same volume.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Kevin R. Bulgrien | 10 Dec 2007 14:28
Picon

Arch repository: layered art files?

While working on a couple new graphics (based on existing ones), I made heavy
use of layers.  I could grab elements from other arch tiles, put them on a
layer (reuse), and then use layers to add unique features.

In one case, I drew a tile from scratch, but used layers to hold particular
components of the tile so that it was easy to rework different aspects of
the tile... especially those involving curves, filters, randomness, etc.

Putting only the .png in SVN feels like putting a pre-compiled object into
the repository... useful... but... not exactly conducive to facilitating any
type of rework.

Does anyone else think that putting the source files into SVN is a good idea,
or just extra clutter?  I realize, for example, my source files are likely
GIMP-specific, and I suppose each artist's favorite editor uses a different
format.  That might be the biggest obstacle.  The next, perhaps, that artists
come few and far between, so the likelihood of actual use may be very low,

Beyond that, if it seems a good idea to various people, what file format 
preferences are out there?

Kevin
Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
Mark Wedel | 11 Dec 2007 07:35
Favicon

Re: Arch repository: layered art files?

Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote:
> Does anyone else think that putting the source files into SVN is a good idea,
> or just extra clutter?  I realize, for example, my source files are likely
> GIMP-specific, and I suppose each artist's favorite editor uses a different
> format.  That might be the biggest obstacle.  The next, perhaps, that artists
> come few and far between, so the likelihood of actual use may be very low,
> 
> Beyond that, if it seems a good idea to various people, what file format 
> preferences are out there?

  Putting the source files in their seems reasonable to me.  I think this was 
done in the past when some folks where using 3d models for make some objects, 
and put the source 3d files into the repository.

  I'd also say that putting in the gimp .xcf files might be the best standard. 
I know that is what I use when editing images - and I suspect that is probably 
what most people, at least those using a unixy type system, probably use.

  The other thing is that it is freely available and crossplatform - you can get 
gimp for windows and macos.  There may be other applications with similar 
features - in fact, I'm sure there are, but they probably are not as standard.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mark Wedel | 11 Dec 2007 09:13
Favicon

Re: combat notes


  So I did some more tweaks.

  I made a quick change so that some of the generators only make 5 monsters and 
then disappear (I'll have to commit that change) works pretty good - I didn't 
try many places, but in the few I did, that is enough to bulk up the monsters in 
the area to respectable level.

  I also have not reduced the exp for generators.  So from a pure standpoint, if 
you're tough enough, you'll get more exp by rushing in and killing the 
generators than waiting for all the monsters to pop out.  But this is on a time 
basis - a generator may be worth 2-3 times as much exp as the monsters it 
produce - the main point is that you can kill a generator in about the same time 
as it takes to kill a monster, so if you can get to them, you're exp gain rate 
is faster.

  By them disappearing when they are used up, it removes some exp source from 
the game.  I think that is a good improvement - you can't camp out killing 
monsters forever, and if the monster is a good challenge, eventually you can 
kill all of them and make it to the next room.

  So I'm tempted to make that a default.  IMO, making that change is really only 
effective if it becomes the default for archetypes, as going through all the 
maps by hand and fixing it would be very time consuming.  OTOH, some maps 
certainly would need to get adjusted manually - things like training centers 
which are supposed to have unlimited monsters.
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
David Delbecq | 11 Dec 2007 14:32
Picon

Re: combat notes

En l'instant précis du 11/12/07 09:13, Mark Wedel s'exprimait en ces
termes:
> you can't camp out killing 
> monsters forever, and if the monster is a good challenge, eventually you can 
> kill all of them and make it to the next room.
>   
That good imho
> things like training centers 
> which are supposed to have unlimited monsters.
>
>   
That bad, if you want to remove map camping, sorry but there must be a
way to avoid it
also in training maps. Tranings maps concept is a "buy XP" concept that
should be removed from
game as is. Having generators disappear in training room is not that
bad, that will for players to
enter real dungeons :)
Btw: did you ever asked your self *how* the training center could have
such a delivery of monster, it's
not like they are easy to find, but maybe closing training center will
mean there will be less npc hunter
that catches wild monster, and means ther will be wild monster in
bigworld outdoor? :D

> _______________________________________________
> crossfire mailing list
> crossfire <at> metalforge.org
> http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
David Delbecq | 11 Dec 2007 14:36
Picon

Re: Arch repository: layered art files?

Agree with you, thought most my pictures i submitted to cf where direct
pixel art-> no layers :)

For the motivated ones, another possibility is to put a source .svg
file. We could even have
the build process convert them to png :p Inkscape is a good vectorial
editor that is also crossplatform.
The interrest of vectorial graphic can be limited for arch files, but
can be veryuseful for icon making for
clients (resizeable icons). Think about it artists :D

En l'instant précis du 10/12/07 14:28, Kevin R. Bulgrien s'exprimait en
ces termes:
> While working on a couple new graphics (based on existing ones), I made heavy
> use of layers.  I could grab elements from other arch tiles, put them on a
> layer (reuse), and then use layers to add unique features.
>
> In one case, I drew a tile from scratch, but used layers to hold particular
> components of the tile so that it was easy to rework different aspects of
> the tile... especially those involving curves, filters, randomness, etc.
>
> Putting only the .png in SVN feels like putting a pre-compiled object into
> the repository... useful... but... not exactly conducive to facilitating any
> type of rework.
>
> Does anyone else think that putting the source files into SVN is a good idea,
> or just extra clutter?  I realize, for example, my source files are likely
> GIMP-specific, and I suppose each artist's favorite editor uses a different
> format.  That might be the biggest obstacle.  The next, perhaps, that artists
> come few and far between, so the likelihood of actual use may be very low,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Juha Jäykkä | 11 Dec 2007 15:08
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: combat notes

> mean there will be less npc hunter
> that catches wild monster, and means ther will be wild monster in
> bigworld outdoor? :D

Hey! This is a wonderful idea: training centers must be filled by players. For 
a price, of course. Put big notices in central Scorn (and other cities): "TCI 
will pay 5 gold for a goblin, 10 gold for an ogre etc upon delivery to the 
relevant TCI installation."

Something like this is already done with guilds' second floor which need a 
Spectre to "open", so the functionality definitely is there. All that needs 
to be added is a persistent repository of monsters and 
the "monster-for-money" -exchange facility. No need for generators and easy 
way to make some little money if you know how to bring about big numbers of 
monsters.

There might even be some monster infestations here and there around bigworld 
and some NPCs hunting them. A totally autonomous bot might be too difficult 
to code, but if the infested areas do not move around (which they optimally 
should!), the bot could just walk from TCI to infestation, charm some goblins 
and walk back with them. That would add some depth to the world.

-Juha
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lauwenmark Akkendrittae | 12 Dec 2007 11:36
Favicon

Re: Arch repository: layered art files?

Le lundi 10 décembre 2007, Kevin R. Bulgrien a écrit :
<snip>
> Does anyone else think that putting the source files into SVN is a good
> idea, or just extra clutter?  

Sounds like a good idea.

> I realize, for example, my source files are 
> likely GIMP-specific, and I suppose each artist's favorite editor uses a
> different format.  That might be the biggest obstacle.  The next, perhaps,
> that artists come few and far between, so the likelihood of actual use may
> be very low,
>
> Beyond that, if it seems a good idea to various people, what file format
> preferences are out there?
>

The Gimp's xcf is a good contender. However, it is also true that there are 
many artists who are using Photoshop, Painter, or Open Canvas; so I'd suggest 
not defining any specific file format, and let each artist use whatever he 
prefers.

Maybe it would be nice to put those elsewhere than in the arch subdir, so that 
artists who wouldn't require the rest can only download those, and 
non-artists can grab the arches without the (possibly heavy) graphic "source" 
files that would be of no use for them ?

Lauwenmark.
------------
"Drive defensively: buy a tank."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Nicolas Weeger | 12 Dec 2007 23:56
Favicon

Re: Arch repository: layered art files?

> > Does anyone else think that putting the source files into SVN is a good
> > idea, or just extra clutter?
>
> Sounds like a good idea.

Agreed on that. Having all the sources is nice, and makes it easier to fix 
things later on :)

> The Gimp's xcf is a good contender. However, it is also true that there are
> many artists who are using Photoshop, Painter, or Open Canvas; so I'd
> suggest not defining any specific file format, and let each artist use
> whatever he prefers.

Agreed, many formats can be used. Of course open formats should be encouraged 
when possible :)

> Maybe it would be nice to put those elsewhere than in the arch subdir, so
> that artists who wouldn't require the rest can only download those, and
> non-artists can grab the arches without the (possibly heavy) graphic
> "source" files that would be of no use for them ?

Agreed on that too, maybe put in a arch_src tree duplicating the arch 
structure?

Nicolas
--

-- 
http://nicolas.weeger.org [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de 
l'aléatoire !]

(Continue reading)






Permalink
| Reply
| 8 comments  
| 



  

  

  





headers


Mark Wedel
 | 
13 Dec 2007 06:22






Favicon





Re: Arch repository: layered art files?


Nicolas Weeger wrote:

>> The Gimp's xcf is a good contender. However, it is also true that there are
>> many artists who are using Photoshop, Painter, or Open Canvas; so I'd
>> suggest not defining any specific file format, and let each artist use
>> whatever he prefers.
> 
> Agreed, many formats can be used. Of course open formats should be encouraged 
> when possible :)

  I'm a bit less sure if having a bunch of formats sitting about in the arch 
directory would be a good thing.  A concern I have is of formats which no one 
can easily use, and there is not certainty if anyone in fact is still using 
those images (hypothetical case here is someone adds some new images in some 
image format, and then disappears from the crossfire world.  Two years later 
ability for anyone else to read the originals may be gone, and not certain if 
anyone would care if they were removed).

  Having everyone use a same format may not work.  But at the same time, if the 
format being used is obscure enough that only that single developer uses it, 
having that source checked in really gains nothing.

  As a compromise, I'd suggest that in principal, any format may be allowed, but 
has to be approved/discussed on a case by case basis.  For fairly popular 
formats or programs, that should pretty much be a rubber stamp.  But if someone 
pops up and wants to add a format no one has ever heard of, answer is probably no.

  Last note would be licensing - I don't know if it would be an issue or not, 
but crossfire is GPL, and thus all files so checked in must be comformant with 
that license.  If adobe or other software has restrictions on what can be done 

(Continue reading)






Permalink
| Reply
| 7 comments  
| 



  

  

  

  


  





    



Gmane