Re: CF: Long term experimental ideas

["Nicolas Loechner" <loechner@zenon-media.com>]

What about object checking/collecting ?
I would hate to be annoyed by whatever low level monster it is
while I am collecting stuff on the floor.

A limit on the monsters being generating would be fine.


On a more general topic, why move from the hacknslash model ?
This hacknslash is the main reason I play Crossfire. I don't like
the current standard RPG game, where you have to think... Uh. :-)
A bit AI for monsters is needed though, and I also like it very much
when the same fighting and mana and such system applies to both
players and monsters.

And yes I'm a great MUD fan. I like very much Crossfire as it is,
for it's a graphical mud.

Just my two cents...

Nicolas.


-----Original Message-----
From: Doug wilder <doug_wilder@hotmail.com>
To: crossfire@ifi.uio.no <crossfire@ifi.uio.no>
Date: mercredi 15 septembre 1999 16:51
Subject: Re: CF: Long term experimental ideas


>I sort of like the idea of invisible indestructable generators too?
>maybe instead of putting them behind the walls make them part of the wall 
>itself.
>
>>From: Hwei Sheng TEOH <hsteoh@cs.toronto.edu>
>>To: crossfire@ifi.uio.no
>>Subject: Re: CF: Long term experimental ideas
>>Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:38:13 -0400
>>
>>
>>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]
>> >
>> > Implementing greater persistence doesn't have to be done all at once.  
>>Mark
>> > has already proposed modifying the random encounter code, so that 
>>monsters
>> > can be encountered in some general vicinity without an associated 
>>generator.
>> > I think that's the first and possibly one of the most important steps 
>>down
>> > that road.  Right now, both Mark and David are right.  The way dungeons 
>>are
>> > built, stomping on monsters is an end in itself.  You may be working on 
>>a
>> > quest, but don't we all try to clear the dungeon while we're at it?
>> > Implementing Mark's proposal is a step towards my proposal and it's part 
>>and
>> > parcel of our stated goal of moving away from the hack 'n' slash model.
>> > Monsters become an obstacle to be dealt with along some longer road.  
>>It's
>> > no longer POSSIBLE to totally clear a dungeon.
>>
>>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.
>>
>> > The theory is that a dungeon is a long and winding hole, and there's 
>>always
>> > some bolthole a kobold or a slime could hide in.  After all, they've 
>>been
>> > living in that dungeon since time beyond memory.  They know where ALL 
>>the
>> > hidey holes you can't find are located.  So they'll always be jumping 
>>out at
>> > you, even though you killed every one you could find and could catch 
>>your
>> > first time through.  While you were busy messing around in lower dungeon
>> > levels, the survivors crept out of their holes.  After you've been 
>>through
>> > their area a few times, and you slaughtered every one which dared attack
>> > you, they'll remember you and hide from you, so you'll stop seeing them 
>>as
>> > much.  But another person who has never been there will be set upon just 
>>as
>> > you were.
>>
>>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.
>>
>> > In AI terms, there are any of several ways to handle it, and even a 
>>couple
>> > ways that can be combined.  The random generator, which is no longer 
>>visible
>> > and can no longer be destroyed, and which the monsters it generates are
>> > linked to, can have a list of characters who have murdered numerous of 
>>its
>> > kind, so the monsters linked to that generator will know to run from 
>>that
>> > character.  Another way to handle it is to make monsters smart enough to
>> > recognize when a character is powerful enough to slaughter them and run 
>>for
>> > it without even trying to attack.
>>
>>Hmm, keeping track of *every* player that had been in the dungeon, *per*
>>generator, seems a little infeasible to me, unless we compromise somehow.
>>
>>[snip]
>> > Some of the difficulty of the rework can be mitigated by yet another
>> > proposal that's already on the table.  Vastly increasing the number of
>> > species available to the player, and allowing the player to play a 
>>monster
>> > species fixes a lot of that problem.  The monkey wrench thrown into the
>> > works by making quest results persistent is compensated for by having
>> > player-controlled monsters.  The monster character wants the same
>> > Super-Duper-Gold-Plated-Whatsit as the hero character.  The tendency of 
>>a
>> > large fraction of the gaming population to indulge in player killing is
>> > addressed quite well.  If you want to kill players, be a monster.  Then
>> > you're actually ENCOURAGED to kill heroes.  I'm astonished that the
>> > commercial services haven't implemented that solution to the age-old
>> > problem.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>[snip]
>> > In the heroic case, the quest isn't changed.  The newly human wizard at 
>>the
>> > end of the obstacle course now amuses himself by controlling and editing 
>>his
>> > obstacle course, and still rewards the Silver-Plated-Whatsit, which he 
>>now
>> > makes, for successfully completing it.  And he doesn't have to sit 
>>around
>> > twiddling his thumbs waiting for lower level characters to reach him,
>> > either.  He doesn't even have to be home most of the time, if his maze 
>>is
>> > well designed.  When a worthy character reaches him, he can just use 
>>David's
>> > Portal to get back.  If he's willing to allow the character to wander 
>>around
>> > in his domain unsupervised, he doesn't have to return home at all.  The
>> > Whatsit can be sitting on a purple pillow, there for the taking.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>[snip]
>> > I think this is a VERY good thing for online-only RPGs.  The commercial
>> > services suffer very much from being commercial.  Business-oriented 
>>people
>> > always want to have CONTROL, and surrenduring control of their world in 
>>any
>> > way is fearsome.  (Yes I know there are non-employees with Game Master
>> > powers in some of the services.  They get to sign a contract that limits
>> > their behavior quite as much as the contract an employee signs.)  The 
>>result
>> > is severe ennui.  Players discover that the world they're paying for 
>>access
>> > to is just a pretty NetHack.  Kill things, gain levels and equipment, 
>>kill
>> > more things.  There's no end, because the steps between levels become
>> > exponentially farther apart in experience points.  Player Killing sets 
>>in,
>> > and enormously complex reputation systems that are STILL buggy are
>> > implemented to try to compensate for it, and still fail.  Ultima is 
>>trying
>> > to compensate, and making headway, as near as I can tell, but their 
>>options
>> > are too limited, and they foolishly neglected the option of monsterous
>> > players.  Our options are wide open, and the proposal of monsterous 
>>players
>> > is on the table.  Bring back the MUD Wizard, and a true GOAL becomes
>> > available.  To begin with, the server administrator fills that role.
>> > Eventually, a player becomes powerful enough to take on much of the role
>> > himself, and there's certainly no reason why there can't be multiple
>> > Wizards, each intent on ruling the world, some by heroic means, some by 
>>any
>> > means necessary.
>>
>>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).
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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...
>>
>>
>>T
>>
>>-
>>[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]
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>-
>[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]

-
[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]