Re: World Map (was CF: the begining of crossfire)

[Mark Wedel <mwedel@scruznet.com>]

Michael Keuchen wrote:
> 

> I, on the opposite, would like the world to be less cohesive - there can be islands
> and continents that are easy to reach, but other strange lands and mysterious places
> that someone has heard of in legends, but haven't been found yet. Such a world is far
> more interesting. Why should there be an (official) world map? The beginner only needs
> an overview of his starting city and continent, but he shouldn't have an overview of
> the whole world.

 I don't really mind new continents.

 But what tends to happen is you get these small islands (10 spaces) that have a
complete city and big series of dungeons (or more often, have a complete city
and only a couple dungeons).

 I think this may have some do with the the map maker and what is fun - creating
a new continent/world is fun, and pretty easy to do.  But once created, it tends
to be much more difficult to fill it in with interesting details.  So in the
end, you get some area which for the most part is empty.

 If new designers come up with continents which are nicely filled and complete,
no problem to them.  Certainly, the current method of instaneous travel will
probably be supported so you can get to areas not on the world map (ie, non
official maps).

 But if at some point, that map designer thinks his map is good enough to be
part of the official set, then some set location should be found ie, 400 spaces
sse of brest)


> 1) Ferries
> Ferries are like the ships we have now, they travel from one place to a fixed other place.
> Maybe you have to pay for them, maybe travelling needs some time, maybe there is
> some animation (ship routes by movers or other solutions).
> You don't need n^2 ship routes, two or three ferries from a harbour is enough
> and makes travelling more interesting: How to get from town A to island Z?

 Yes - these will lead to 'unofficial' maps and the like IMO.

> 
> 2) Ships that are dungeon maps
> As now, like some pirate ships.

 Yes - basically just exits leading to other maps.

> 
> 3) Rowboats
> These boats can be lend (or bought), but are only usable in shallow waters around
> the actual island. There would be none in Pupland, but you can use them to explore
> the small islands around Wolfsburg.

 I would include this as general ships/crafts.  Now, the different crafts may
have different properties.  a rowboat could perhaps deal with shallow water,
while that galleon could not deal with shallow water, but could deal with deep
water.  Then you could have things like dragons that fly, or maybe balloons that
drift with the wind, and so on.

> 
> 4) Owned ships as moving appartments

 As apartments, these are hard to deal with.  Furthermore, I could certainly see
a party want to share a ship (if so expensive).

 I personally don't see the need to make these ships into apartments - in fact,
that could be very annoying if you die and end back in scorn with your
ship/apartment half a world away.

 I would instead make them a bit less expensive, but not be apartments - just
normal transport objects like everything else.


> 3) and 4) assume that the appearance of the character can change into something
> different (a 1*2 rowboat, a 2*2 galleon); this will come in future versions
> (shapeshifting, character on a horse, ...), but will need some time.

 Yes - this is not something I expect to be done all that soon (first object
rewrite for 0.96, then probably redo the map structure (certainly easier than
the objects), then look at more of these other features.

 First course of business is to get the base code cleaned up, then worry about
the add ons which will require a bit of work (because it is not just changing
the face - you are also changing the characteristics - that ship can go on
water, but not land, which is basically the opposite of normal players)

Hwei Sheng TEOH wrote:
> 

> Hmm, should we really have continents unreachable by any means except
> *flying*? Right now, that's how you get to Pupland... For one thing, I think
> it's a cool idea that you actually have to ride a dragon to get to those
> islands. I remember Mark's idea about bribing a dragon to make it fly you to a
> certain place. Now, if you could get there by ship, there won't be much point
> in flying. (Unless we implement bad weather when sailing, so that sailing off
> to some faraway place like that may not be that desirable.)

 Hiring a dragon is almost certainly faster than a ship.  If you actually 'own'
it (ie, it does not fly away when you land), a dragon ends up being a much
better mode of transport, as you can land inland someplace, and are not limited
to coastal areas.



> Which reminds me of another idea I have... currently, water is basically a
> "no pass" terrain -- and is treated exactly like a wall. This sucks, because
> you couldn't jump over a small river if you had the jumping skill, which,
> conceptually, should be possible. Also, this precludes any water-dwelling
> creatures: they won't be able to move because water is basically no-pass
> terrain. Why not we implement different "mediums", like land/water? Then, we
> can have a "mediums" field/list in monsters/players, that specifies exactly
> what kind of terrain they are allowed to pass.

 I'll have to look into this possibility after 0.96.x.  But it is more than just
water.  For example, something like the city walls you should be able to
climb/fly over if you have the appropriate/spell.  However, you can not do so
right now - all walls are basically assumed to be of infinite high/meet the
cieling.

 This may become simpler if/when we go to a 2 scale system (outdoor/indoor). 
You could assume outdoor walls can be scaled, while indoor walls can not (meets
the cieling).  I do agree that having things 'blocked' is a bit excessive.  It
could even be interesting to dig through walls, albeit very slowly.

 Certain areas, like treasure chambers, should be protect by impeneterable
areas.  But the bulk of the world shouldn't be.

> 
> Is it possible to have ships that are both maps and "sailable" ships? This is
> just a wild idea, but I thought it'd allow for interesting things like getting
> on a pirate ship, kill the captain, then take over the ship and sail it where
> you want!

 That would be hard to implement.  The one way I could think of doing it would
be to have the 'exit ship' transform into the other ship type by some event
(maybe you have the captains hat or whatever).


> This way, owning a ship isn't merely a pay-once-for-all thing -- you have to
> maintain it, and it costs. Making it pay-once-for-all will *indeed* unbalance
> the game, but forcing the player to regularly maintain it will offset this, so
> that you may start out owning a good ship and sail all over the lands, but
> later you run out of money to maintain and decide to sell it and settle for a
> lower-quality ship which is more restricted in where it can go, but has a more
> affordable cost.

 We talked about making most food objects age and slowly disappear (decompose). 
Something similar could be done for ships.

 Give them a very slow decomposition rate based on quality.  Each ship has so
many 'hp'.  Each time it decomposes, it looses some hp.

 So a ship with a low decompose rate and maximum hp would last a very long
time.  A poor ship may not have a lot of hp left and a fast decomposition rate.

 The one other advantage to this is that you don't get a case with the world
littered with ships (which could happen in the ultima series as you don't have a
ship handy, buy one, sail it to where your other ships are) - if you leave a
ship someplace for a long time, it will eventually fall apart.  If a ship is in
port, it would be immune to this aging effect. (and maybe you drop some gold
down, and repairs actually get started while you do your business)

> 
> Actually, now that I think about it, to offset the too-powerful-artifact
> problem, do people think it's a good idea to implement a deterioration factor
> into equipment, so that it's not just a matter of buying/finding a +7
> supersword and be powerful forever from then on, but after you use this weapon
> enough, you may have to repair it (sharpen it or strengthen the waning magical
> enchantment it has). Same idea as the maintenance fee of ships above. Will
> this be too cumbersome, or will it actually help in balancing the game?

 Typed in my idea above before reading your last paragraph.

 I think aging for all equipment may just end up being too annoying.  I don't
think it would be very fun to have to head back to town from the middle of the
wilderness because your equipment needs repair.

 For some specialized items or very powerful ones, it could make sense.

 But for something like a sword, you can't really repair it - you just
re-sharpen it.  So maybe it could lose some of its pluses, but unless you enable
the shop keepers to go back up to that high level (which then involves storing a
maximum plus value), it would be a one way street and in the end, all your
equipment would end up mediocre.
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]