RE: CF: Long term experimental ideas

[dragonm <dragonm@leech.org>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Hwei Sheng TEOH
To: crossfire@ifi.uio.no
Sent: 9/14/99 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: CF: Long term experimental ideas


On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, dragonm wrote:

[snip--I don't like long intro paragraphs as much as you don't like long
subjects... ;-) just kidding]
----------------
<thpppppppt>  :P
----------------
<snip>

Hmmm.. this will be interesting. Note that we will then have to
differentiate between dungeons and other maps like houses, cities, etc.. But
I must say, this is a very neat idea.
----------------
In the case of many of the houses, as they stand now they're just an
above-ground dungeon.  The concept generalizes to include them to a certain
extent, and things can be worked out.
----------------
<snip>

Hmm... I've never liked the idea of generators in CF, especially generators
that you can "kill", and that ceaselessly produces monsters. I think,
generators should either be made invisible (as is proposed), or made
"indestructible" (what does it mean to "destroy" a dragon cave
anyway?!).  Then, generators should produce only limited numbers of
monsters, like with a max number (as is also proposed). I like the idea of
"hidey holes" that no one can reach -- we can put generators behind dungeon
walls, (simulating unreachable caves where the monsters are hiding) and have
them produce monsters on the other side of the wall.

Another interesting idea would be to have players that choose to play as
a monster of that type have access to that hole. (So that if a player is a
kobold, he can lurk around the kobold holes). This may or may not be
feasible for mapmakers to do, though... so maybe the player can only access
a few small rooms where the kobold generators are. We can then explain the
generators as the holes where reinforcements are coming from. The kobold
player can then use that hole to hide from other creatures in the dungeon.
----------------
Uhm, actually, I wasn't intending to keep generators as a variant of their
current form at all.  And I wasn't refering to literal hidey holes, either.
That paragraph was intended to be backstory justifying the behavior.
Generators as such would cease to exist.  AI Monsters would appear based on
probabilities and densities for a given area of map floorspace.

However, you bring up a very salient point.  A human player who wishes to
play as a kobold or other cannon-fodder creature would definitely prefer to
run around in the company of a horde of his brethren, even if they are just
AIs.  In this case, a literal hidey hole is a necessity.  I hadn't thought
of that.
----------------
<snip>

Hmm, keeping track of *every* player that had been in the dungeon, *per*
generator, seems a little infeasible to me, unless we compromise
somehow.
----------------
It depends on traffic a great deal, and I've already thought of one way to
address the problem, should it become a problem.  You don't keep track of
every player at every generator for all time.  After a certain number of
virtual weeks or months, entries in the list are expired and deleted.  This
keeps the number of player pointers manageable even in the case of high
traffic areas.  Traffic in terms of raw numbers is highly pertinent, though.
This ain't EverQuest.  We don't have to contend with tens of thousands of
players.  Keeping an exhaustive list is quite feasible, given the fact that
we're dealing with fairly low numbers.
----------------
<snip>

Hmm, if we do things this way, we'd have to have AI heroes to satisfy
the urges of the monster player, esp. if the server has very few "hero"
players. Why not generalize? It seems, with the recent discussion, there's
already a trend in making the races more distinct. Why not push it further
-- instead of differentiating between "heroes" and "monsters", why not we
use the RACE as a distinguishing factor? So, elves and dwarves will be
opposed to the giant races, and either of them may or may not be players.
This way, we won't need special provision for AI heroes. I think this will
make things a LOT more interesting. I'm sick of the traditional "hero vs.
monster" philosophy.  Why not we have something more general -- multiple
races, each with likes and dislikes for the other races. Players may choose
to play *any* race (or at least, most of the races, that are feasible to
implement), and he'll play the
character according to that race.
----------------
Good point.  AI heroes would definitely be needed, especially if there is a
preponderence of monster players.  This idea already generalizes in
precisely that way.  I see I didn't make that clear.  "Hero" and "monster"
were convenient labels, not straitjackets to push players into.  Using race
was exactly what I had in mind.  However, I didn't intend for that to be a
straitjacket either, if you'll recall my contribution to the races thread.
I detest server-enforced animosities between races with no leeway.  In
EverQuest, there are a bunch of different races, each with racial
animosities towards each other.  I thought that was stupid, since except for
town guards and shopkeepers, ONLY humans were playing any of those races.  I
proposed eliminating it entirely.  You've taken it a step farther, and
proposed generalizing it to its greatest extent.  In that case yes, the
racial animosities are necessary as AI drivers.  I do think that there
should be some slack in enforcement, though.  A wraith accompanied by a
powerful human should be able to enter a human town and not get killed on
sight by the guards.  There's more to be said on that subject, but I'll
leave it for now.
----------------
<snip>

This works well in the case that the quest involves a fixed reward, like
an artifact. Things are much harder if the quest has a storyline -- with
many clues, and NPCs which tell parts of the story, etc.. You will no longer
be able to have NPCs tell you "do such and such to the wizard at the bottom
of dungeon xxx, or give him such and such, to get a reward." You'll be
limiting quests to interacting with static things like artifacts and
objects; you can't have any clues that talk about the wizard himself (or
whatever monster plays that role) since he may get replaced, nor any special
monster/NPC that you may encounter on the way, since the new player-wizard
may choose not to put in the dungeon super-monster XXX which was originally
the bodyguard of the old wizard.
----------------
Actually, much of that can be included as well.  What the NPC says is
adjusted by the human wizard.  The backstory is, the NPC is the wizard's
employee, though he doesn't admit it.  The mechanism is, the player who took
the AI wizard's place can edit the clues that refer the quest that leads to
himself.  They're part of the "property" of that wizard.
----------------
<snip>

Being able to take over a particular dungeon certainly appeals to me...
I don't know how far you should push this Wizard thing, though; having the
entire world dominated by one player seems a little too far (may cause
vast imbalance in the game depending on what the player does with his power
-- if we allow things like changing dungeons (like you described above),
you're assuming that whoever manages to take over the dungeon has enough
sense to keep that dungeon reasonable. Otherwise you may get total chaos on
the entire CF world (whoever takes over will turn it into whatever he likes
it to be) with unreasonable traps, map inconsistencies, strange combinations
of monsters, etc., but on a worse order of magnitude (can't guarantee game
quality at the map level).
----------------
As my last sentence said, there could very well be multiple Wizards, some
good, some not.  I definitely didn't intend for one Wizard to acquire enough
power to control the entire world simulated by the server.  A Wizard's
control should extend throughout his realm and no farther.  I do think a
Wizard should be able to edit his dungeon, but I also don't think it should
just be another name for Crossfire Map Maker.  There should be costs
associated with changing things, and costs associated with maintaining
things.  Just because you're a Wizard doesn't mean you should have the power
to plant an unlimited number of Greater Demons in your realm, even if you
are an evil Wizard.  I think it will be all you can do to maintain control
of ONE Greater Demon.  You can't create unreasonable traps and map
inconsistencies quickly because moving walls around in a dungeon is NOT
easy.  Ever try to dig through solid rock with a shovel?  :)  And as soon as
one unreasonable trap is implemented, word will spread and everybody will
know to avoid it.  And six virtual months of hard work goes down the drain.
As I said, the virtual physics of the game world and the player's own power
will limit what a Wizard-class player can do.  They won't be kind limits.
So whoever takes over most definitely will not be able to turn it into
whatever he likes it to be.
----------------

OTOH the idea of being able to "administrate" a dungeon that you just
took over suonds really fun to me. We'll definitely need to think over the
necessary restrictions and rules that the player needs to abide by.
----------------
Almost.  Lots of restrictions.  No rules.  If you can afford it, we'll let
you do it.  But buddy, if you think you can put 8 pit traps in one corridor,
don't blame us if the entire corridor collapses.

One restriction would be cost.  Yes, finally you have something to do with
all that platinum.

One restriction would be physics.  Dungeon walls can't float on air.  If you
tunnel out their foundation, they fall down.

One restriction would be the race animosities.  You can't have strange
combinations of monsters because the AI animosities are still in effect and
a fire monster will try to kill an ice monster if you try to force them into
close proximity to each other.  Only if you manage to find two
human-controlled monsters who are willing to set aside that animosity do you
even have a chance of managing that.  And we don't want you to do that, so
the ice monster will start to melt (take damage) if he's in proximity to a
fire monster and the blowback of each of their attacktypes will damage each
other quite a lot 'cause they're probably on each other's slaying lists, so
not even two human "monsters" will be willing to maintain strange relations.
More likely, they'll try to kill each other.  :)

The last major restriction is one of power.  Dominating a Greater Demon is
no trivial task.  Attempting to summon and dominate multiple Greater Demons
results in the Wizard-class character becoming lunch.  This specific case
generalizes in both directions.  A typical Wizard-class character will be
able to dominate maybe one Greater Demon, one middlin' size dragon, a couple
less powerful wizards, and so on down the line to a medium sized horde of
Kobolds.  A VERY powerful Wizard-class character might be able to handle as
many as 3 Greater Demons or 3 large dragons, but he'd better not turn his
back on his domain for very long or they'll run wild.
----------------
Now, of course, the ideal situation would be a server that actually lets
you dynamically create new maps that act as extensions to the "standard"
area of the game world, so that powerful characters can actually become King
of their part of the game world, and they'll be responsible for creating the
necessary things in their domain to attract players. But this does sound a
little out in the blue, though it's not impossible...
----------------
Actually, I didn't see any reason to explicitly prevent that, and every
reason to provide the possibility.  If you want to go and build a haunted
castle on an unoccupied stretch of wilderness someplace, more power to you.
If you want to tunnel a dungeon into an empty mountain someplace, feel free.
If you want to build a pirate cove on an empty island someplace, go right
ahead.  But all of the restrictions of a wizard taking over an existing
domain are still in full effect.  Building a castle or tunneling a dungeon,
or building a pirate cove are HUGELY expensive propositions.  It would be
priced out of reach of all but possibly a consortium of four or five
Wizard-class characters.  And price isn't the only obstacle.  We'll make you
deal with logistics, too.  Where are you going to get that great pile of
rock required to build a castle?  (From the guy tunnelling a dungeon three
mountains over, you say.  Yeah yeah, shaddup, wise guy.)  You don't get to
just submit a wheelbarrow of money to a town broker someplace and poof,
here's your castle and you can pick any old place to put it.  That aspect of
Ultima Online was an idiotic notion, at best.  Yes some things would have to
be adjusted.  Right now, there's precious little empty real estate.  But
considering the sweeping changes embodied in the idea itself, adding a
littel real estate isn't the most significant challenge in implementing the
scheme.

DM
-
[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]