Re: CF: Object decay, wear, and repair (Was Re: World Map)

[Mark Wedel <mwedel@scruznet.com>]

Hwei Sheng TEOH wrote:

> >     How about letting aethereal (immune: physical) players simply walk
> > through walls?  As long as the walls aren't also magic-proof, of course.
> > That would allow access to the same types of places that Dimension Door
> > does, with perhaps a few more because of the ability to turn corners, but it
> > would be a different and interesting way to accomplish the same thing.
> 
> This would be bad... at least in the current maps. A lot of maps (and I do the
> same in my own maps) use inaccessible areas to place things like gate-boulder
> mechanisms and so forth. 
<snip>
> 
> We could, of course, restrict such areas by putting antimagic fields around
> it... but then it does make people suspicious for no reason (why is that
> circular area in the corner of the map protected by a magical field?) since
> the stuff in that area doesn't really belong to the world, it's an auxilliary
> mechanism.

 I don't think making the players suspicious is a big deal.  They can cast magic
map and say 'what is that big area over there I can't get to?'.

 Some maps actually had problems with this - they would do a map that uses may
60% of the map (or combine several small maps into one map with appropriately
linked exits).  If no magic wasn't applied to the walls, you could dimension
door into this no mans land so to speak.  And that will also be a problem with
etheraelity.

 One option, which helps some, but isn't perfect, is only allow a player to fly
through a wall if there is a non wall on the other side (opposite direction from
where the player is entering).  So in this way, you could not fly through double
walls, but could fly through single thick walls.

 One thing I would argue, however, is that perhaps map makers should not be
totally concerned with players completely the map in 'the proper way'.  If a
clever player can creatively use some items or whatever to bypass some area,
more power to the player, assuming it does not totally kill all maps.

 The other suggestion would be to add some extra information to walls in perhaps
the form of a bitmask.  Thinks like:

 fly_over: If set, a player can fly over this wall
 ethereal: If set, and ethereal creature can fly through this wall
 digable: If set, a player can very slowly dig through this wall/use wands of
digging (much slower than an earthwall, and perhaps needing proper tools).
 minable:  Like digable, but wall may have some random mineral inside.
 Also add the no_magic and other such flags here, so you don't need to stack
other objects on top.

 Probably make a new archetype of a few of the more popular versions.


 And perhaps a few others.  Of course, by default, no walls might have this set,
but this opens up a new area for map designers.  Being able to go into a dungeon
and dig up some random minerals for that alchemy potion may be a good bet.


> >     Side effects of this include: weapons and armour of varying quality
> > found in varying states of repair, rare and expensive Repair Weapon and
> > Repair Armour scrolls, non-magical "artifact" items of exceptional, albeit
> > natural, quality that have more hit points or are more resistant to damage.
> > Use of smithery skill (and an appropriate "anvil") to repair
> > damaged/worn/corroded items up to a maximum dependent on your level,
> > something like +1 per 8 levels.  And don't forget the economic effects.
> > Less equipment will be sold to shops when it becomes important to have more
> > spares and replace items you don't want to bother repairing, or can't afford
> > to repair.  Maintaining all your equipment becomes rapidly more costly as
> > you accumulate more and more powerful equipment.
> 
> Hmmm, this does add a whole new dimension to the game. It might actually make
> sense, since you'd have to manage your equipment and/or finances better.
> Although, personally I'd prefer that the wearing out of equipment be very
> slow, so that a low level player isn't spending all his time repairing stuff
> rather than using them to do something more useful/interesting.

 It really depends on what aspects of the game are interesting.  Very few games
deal with equipment deteriotation, and I think the reason is just that - having
to deal with constant repairs really isn't that interesting.

 That said, I see a couple interesting ideas related to this;

 1) Allow blacksmiths to repair damage that is currently done via acid attacks
(and perhaps other type attacks).  So that piece of armor is not totally ruined
because you get hit by a rust monster.
 2) Allow objects to have non inheritable protections.  For example, that
platinum coated sword should be protected/immune to the affects of acid (and
thus not rust when hit by acid), but should not give that same protection to the
player, as it is not a magical manifestation.  This is actually pretty easy to
do - just add a flag which determines if the attributes are inheritable.
 3) With #1 above, and as been previously discussed, allow blacksmiths/magic
users to enchant items.  The maximum enchantment should be set on both the
blacksmith and the item archetype.  So for example, helmets could never be
better than +2, but to get there, you also need to find a blacksmith that is
that good.  This can reduce shop searching somewhat - if you know you want some
item, but the shop happens to be out of it, you can pay the blacksmith to make,
albeit at a higher cost compared to if it was actually in the shop.


> 
> My idea of it is basically a way of limiting powerful artifacts. So a player
> who finds a +7 demonslayer will benefit from it for a significant time, but
> not forever -- he'd have to find a new weapon when the old one gets overused.
> I'd like to see decay in magical equipment as well (weakening of the magic
> field) although this might seem non-traditional. The rationale is that players
> shuoldn't rely on a superpower artifact forever, once they find it. It would
> be much more interesting to make it necessary to always be finding new and
> better artifacts. Of course, it will *still* be possible to use something
> forever -- you'd just have to pay for the repairs/re-enchantments.

 There are a couple reasons things last forever right now:

 1) Most all current artifacts have a non existant material, which basically
makes them immune to any and all attacktypes (they can never be destroyed or
damaged).  So once you find an artifact, it is good forever.
 2) Except for acid, very few attacktypes (cancellation being another I can
think of) will actually harm items in a players inventory.

 Both could pretty easily be changed.  Artifacts should have some material and
be destructible - it would just be very unlikely for most artifacts due to their
high magic value and the fact they tend to have various protections.

 The second one could have fairly big affects.  AD&D definately has a players
items make saves if the character itself fails their saving through.  But with
crossfire, where you have some attacks like fireball which hit you for a lot of
attacks, that could result in a lot of destruction.  So that could be pretty
harsh (get hit by a large fireball, and chances are you need to make a dozen
saves, with at least a few you will fail so some items go toast).  

 OTOH, this may add some playbalance to the game -  player won't carry every
item he has simply because there will be some fear of that happening.  A player
may also think about getting out of spell effects a little quicker then.
-
[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]