Re: Balance changes

On 31/12/2007, Mark Wedel <mwedel@...> wrote:

> 2) Since the rebalance here includes scaling things up to level 100, it strikes
> me we can not give out new spells every level.  Maybe every 5 or so, so at level
> 5 you get a small exploding ball and small bolt spell (maybe not at exactly same
> level, who knows)

Sure you can. Make old spells have old strength until player learns
new level of the spell. i.e. to cast lelvel 2 bullet you need to find
and learn a level 2 book, and until then you will cast a level 1
bullet. This also allows to fine-tune each spell for each level,
however you would want higher level versions to replace lower level
versions, to keep the spells list from getting too large.

> Item creation classes - if someone wants to play a blacksmith and make weapons
> all day, who am I to say no?  But with other balance changes, we can know how
> this works - that blacksmith needs raw ore, and the facilities and time.  Maybe
> there is a mine near by he can go to get the ore - but if it takes 5 minutes
> realtime for him to get a load of stuff, that help factor out exp gain.
> Likewise, if he gets 50 exp for making a sword, it means he has to make a lot of
> swords to gain a level, and if an actual time delay is put in there (lets say it
> takes 10 seconds realtime to make a sword), it probably means that such a
> character will not gain levels any faster than any other class, so IMO would be
> considered in balance.  The only issue here is that I think such long time (10
> second) actions need to be interruptible - in a sense, it is almost like the run
> on stuff - the character keeps making the sword unless he chooses to do
> something else.  And there is some chance at failure - a first level blacksmith
> maybe only has a 50% chance to successfully make a sword for example.
>
>   I think clerics/priests are basically OK.  Any other thoughts out there?

Re: Balance changes

Anton Oussik wrote:
> On 31/12/2007, Mark Wedel <mwedel@...> wrote:
> 
>> 2) Since the rebalance here includes scaling things up to level 100, it strikes
>> me we can not give out new spells every level.  Maybe every 5 or so, so at level
>> 5 you get a small exploding ball and small bolt spell (maybe not at exactly same
>> level, who knows)
> 
> Sure you can. Make old spells have old strength until player learns
> new level of the spell. i.e. to cast lelvel 2 bullet you need to find
> and learn a level 2 book, and until then you will cast a level 1
> bullet. This also allows to fine-tune each spell for each level,
> however you would want higher level versions to replace lower level
> versions, to keep the spells list from getting too large.

  But I'm not sure if there is much point to that.  If there are sufficient 
different spells to cover all the levels, that is fine.

  But having a level 1 bullet, and level 2 bullet, etc, in which the spells are 
really the same except for a minor damage variation seems a bit excessive.  The 
damage variation can be handled by increase in the caster level itself - a new 
spell at every level isn't needed.  Sure, it puts more spells out there, but if 
they are really the same spell, they are not different spells.

  And as a player, I'm not sure if i would like that idea either - having to 
upgrade all the spells each time you gain a level would seem more annoying than 
fun if all the difference is something minor.  In fact, it would likely create 
even more spell book hunting as your try to find spellbooks of not only 
appropriate spell, but also of appropriate level.

Re: Plan to commit combat changes to trunk

>   I've been playing with the rebalance of melee combat for crossfire for a
> while, and while not 100% done, I think it is complete enough to warrant
> committing it to the trunk and hopefully getting more exposure.
>
>   Now for folks running trunk servers, while the change will not cause
> anything to actually break (or it shouldn't), it will cause a change in
> game play, so folks may find combat tougher.

Gonna be hard on permadeath servers :)

>   I have also limited the generators, via arch change, to only generate 5
> monsters before the generator dies.  I'm sure some maps need updating -
> that 5 monster limit is actually a pretty good compromise - it tends to
> fill up those empty dungeons that rely on generators to fill them up, but
> also keeps monsters at a reasonable level.

That's a major change, though. Many maps, especially some training centers or 
Gorokh's final map, actually rely on illimited generators. So maybe that 
should not be committed for now, or made optional for map designers to 
decide.

>   I could do all this work in a branch - I'm just don't think that is
> really worthwhile - the main point of the trunk is to work on the big
> projects like this.  I'd say that where things are now, it has moved beyond
> expiremental code to code that will be used, but some more work is still
> needed.  I'll start another thread about future changes for balancing.  But
> I'm willing to discuss, and for folks to see this as a heads up if you are
> running a trunk server.

Agreed, trunk is for big changes...

Re: Balance changes

>   While I haven't adjusted bow combat, from the basic uses I've done so
> far, it seems to be somewhat reasonable - the fire/kill rate is somewhat
> close to to melee - big advantage is that you're not right next to
> creature.  Big disadvantage is you need to carry thousands of arrows about.
>  A thought here is to greatly reduce the odds of arrows (at least non
> special ones) being destroyed, so you can at least get back most of the
> arrows you fire (special ones, like the assassinating whatever should still
> be one shot).

Agreed on one shot assassination, but it does need to do real extra damage, 
else no need for them - I'd rather carry/make 3 regular arrows than take the 
time to find all ingredients for a special one!

>   Spells are the next thing to tackle. I think I'll go down the route of
> elemental spells, as discussed.  Some additional quick thoughts:

Discussion seemed ok.

> 3) In order to make these low level spells effectively, I think the damage
> on them needs to ramp up pretty quickly (creatures hp goes up about
> 10/creature level, so level 1 creatures have 20 hp, level 5 about 50 hp,
> level 10 around 150 hp).  To counter this, max damage/range/whatever type
> things are added, so at level 15 (lets say) that firebullet you get a first
> level doesn't get any better.

*nods*

> 4) Related to this, better version of low level spells can be put in the
> game. At level 10, maybe give out 'medium bullet' type of thing, which
> costs more than the small one, but does more damage and also scales up to

Re: Balance changes

On 03/01/2008, Mark Wedel <mwedel@...> wrote:
> Anton Oussik wrote:
> > On 31/12/2007, Mark Wedel <mwedel@...> wrote:
> >
> >> 2) Since the rebalance here includes scaling things up to level 100, it strikes
> >> me we can not give out new spells every level.  Maybe every 5 or so, so at level
> >> 5 you get a small exploding ball and small bolt spell (maybe not at exactly same
> >> level, who knows)
> >
> > Sure you can. Make old spells have old strength until player learns
> > new level of the spell. i.e. to cast lelvel 2 bullet you need to find
> > and learn a level 2 book, and until then you will cast a level 1
> > bullet. This also allows to fine-tune each spell for each level,
> > however you would want higher level versions to replace lower level
> > versions, to keep the spells list from getting too large.
>
>   But I'm not sure if there is much point to that.  If there are sufficient
> different spells to cover all the levels, that is fine.
>
>   But having a level 1 bullet, and level 2 bullet, etc, in which the spells are
> really the same except for a minor damage variation seems a bit excessive.  The
> damage variation can be handled by increase in the caster level itself - a new
> spell at every level isn't needed.  Sure, it puts more spells out there, but if
> they are really the same spell, they are not different spells.
>
>   And as a player, I'm not sure if i would like that idea either - having to
> upgrade all the spells each time you gain a level would seem more annoying than
> fun if all the difference is something minor.  In fact, it would likely create
> even more spell book hunting as your try to find spellbooks of not only
> appropriate spell, but also of appropriate level.

Re: Next release

Le lundi 31 décembre 2007, Mark Wedel a écrit :
>   Had mentioned several months back I was going to do a new stable release
> in the near future.  Between getting sidetracked and waiting for some
> changes to get put back, I never got around to making a release.

Hopefully there will be a Windows release, last tests show everything work as 
intented, just need to ensure all DLLs are packed as needed :)

Client has metaserver2 support, and server should too when I get the time 
(unless someone else does it before, of course ^_-)

Nicolas
--

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

_______________________________________________
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@...
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: Balance changes

> Having the action take a long time would just be perceived as lag, and
> so should be avoided if at all possible.

Brewing potions (or beer!) could easily have a time lag: it takes time for the 
stuff to brew. BUT it does not mean the player should stand immobile: the 
player should keep the forge hot while the steel is heating etc. Hammering 
the blade into shape DOES take some time, but if we make the preparations 
time consuming (without making the player immobile), the balance can be 
achieved without making the hammering last too long. This has two advantages: 
scripting does not make it any faster and it is realistic (except for the 
hammering-takes-no-time-part, which is game-technically required so that 
players don't think it's lagging or get bored): it takes some time to heat a 
forge, it takes some time for the metal to heat up etc.

> Adopting a similar system to the one used by rods now to prevent
> overuse may be most appropriate.

I have never created a rod. How does this happen?

-Juha

--

-- 
		 -----------------------------------------------
		| Juha Jäykkä, juolja@...			|
		| home: http://www.utu.fi/~juolja/		|
		 -----------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
crossfire mailing list

Re: Plan to commit combat changes to trunk

Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>>   I've been playing with the rebalance of melee combat for crossfire for a
>> while, and while not 100% done, I think it is complete enough to warrant
>> committing it to the trunk and hopefully getting more exposure.
>>
>>   Now for folks running trunk servers, while the change will not cause
>> anything to actually break (or it shouldn't), it will cause a change in
>> game play, so folks may find combat tougher.
> 
> Gonna be hard on permadeath servers :)

  Hence the warning.  May not be a bad idea for server admins to make a backup 
of the player files, just in case.

> 
>>   I have also limited the generators, via arch change, to only generate 5
>> monsters before the generator dies.  I'm sure some maps need updating -
>> that 5 monster limit is actually a pretty good compromise - it tends to
>> fill up those empty dungeons that rely on generators to fill them up, but
>> also keeps monsters at a reasonable level.
> 
> That's a major change, though. Many maps, especially some training centers or 
> Gorokh's final map, actually rely on illimited generators. So maybe that 
> should not be committed for now, or made optional for map designers to 
> decide.

  So maps themselves can always override it.  This is just the basic archetype 
property.

  Now folks could use the old archetypes, disable that section of code, etc. 

Re: Balance changes

Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>>   While I haven't adjusted bow combat, from the basic uses I've done so
>> far, it seems to be somewhat reasonable - the fire/kill rate is somewhat
>> close to to melee - big advantage is that you're not right next to
>> creature.  Big disadvantage is you need to carry thousands of arrows about.
>>  A thought here is to greatly reduce the odds of arrows (at least non
>> special ones) being destroyed, so you can at least get back most of the
>> arrows you fire (special ones, like the assassinating whatever should still
>> be one shot).
> 
> Agreed on one shot assassination, but it does need to do real extra damage, 
> else no need for them - I'd rather carry/make 3 regular arrows than take the 
> time to find all ingredients for a special one!

  I think many recipes may be too hard (or do not generate enough of an item) 
for the ingredients required - that is certainly another balance issue there - 
alchemy has never been balanced, it should be done.  But that isn't quite as 
main part of the game as say magic and fighting is, and is also balance in a 
different nature (difficulty of ingredients, difficulty of recipes, etc)

>> 4) Related to this, better version of low level spells can be put in the
>> game. At level 10, maybe give out 'medium bullet' type of thing, which
>> costs more than the small one, but does more damage and also scales up to
>> higher level.
> 
> Please, no.
> No "small fireball", "medium fireball", "large fireball", "extra large 
> fireball", "xxx fireball", "mega fireball", "guaranteed most powerful 
> fireball".
> I'd rather have just damage/range gain for levels.

Re: Balance changes

Anton Oussik wrote:
> Yes, fair enough. Some spells today are already improvements of older
> versions though, e.g. the snowstorms, so you already have a bit of
> chasing "higher version" of a spell around. Perhaps it is a question
> of striking the right balance between having too many similar spells
> of different levels and too few spells to encourage progressing.

  But current system, those are distinct spells, and not upgrades.  When you 
learn medium snowstorm, you still have small snowstorm available.

  There are two real effects of this - if you lose a level, you may not be able 
to cast medium snowstorm, but you still have the small snowstorm you can cast, 
since they are distinct spells and not an upgrade.

  It also means that for any given spell, there is still just one spellbook.

  I personally don't think having too few spells would discourage progressing so 
long as the spells you have get better.

  Fighter classes have no spells, you people progress in them because they can 
do more damage, get exp, etc.

  I see the spellcasting skills the same way.  If you learn those first level 
spells and never get any more exp in the spellcasting classes, you're likely to 
find out pretty quickly that those first level spells (or more relevent, first 
level casting level), just doesn't cut it.  Casting a level 1 bullet spell at a 
level 10 monster won't ever kill it, etc.

> 
> Having the action take a long time would just be perceived as lag, and