Re: [crossfire] map design guideline (was: Summary)
> So, no one has any opinion on what was said on the thread? > Ok, if you insist... My opinion is that regardless of the design guidelines, Crossfire maps will stay at best "average", because the fighting/damage system used forces fast and brutal combat. This is perfectly suitable with the original concept of a "hack'n'slash" game - but I do not think it fits the role of a more RPG-oriented game. Neither does it with the idea of multiplayer gaming. There is also the content problem, of course: too few content written, and fewer actually used in maps. > No one cares? > I stopped caring after it was obvious that better content was not map-making's top priority. > No one has any idea? > Write content. Use what's already written. Change the pace of combat to give a meaning to multiplaying. Then, maybe it would be time to set some design rules for maps. > No one agrees? No one rejects? What do you people on the list expect of > Crossfire? > I expect it to focus less on code, and more on everything else. It doesn't seem to be the case. > Are you ready to help? > For teamwork ? Sure. For single-handed development, no. > Or is the project so dead no one contributes in any way? > A better question would be to ask why people don't contribute more. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] map design guideline (was: Summary)
So, no one has any opinion on what was said on the thread? No one cares? No one has any idea? No one agrees? No one rejects? What do you people on the list expect of Crossfire? Are you ready to help? Or is the project so dead no one contributes in any way? Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.free.fr [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de l'aléatoire !] pgpgNI3Jr6G43.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] map design guideline (was: Summary)
There is already a map guide document that more or less describes good vs bad maps. However, a lot of maps predate that. Not trapping big monsters is difficult - unless you have a completely empty room, it is hard for something like a big demon not to be 'trapped' in some way. and if you have a big empty room that the entrance leads to, you now get the problem you come down the exit on top of a monster which doesn't work very well (yes, the monster may not be there initially, but say you go down, blast the monster a bit, then pop back up to heal/whatever - it is possible that at that time, the monster is on top of the exit next time you go down. I also don't have too big an issue with a group of monsters without a big plot behind them. Seems perfectly reasonable for me for a tribe of orcs to being living in a cave. Or for that matter, the dragon cave makes a similar amount of sense - dragons have to live someplace. I don't think that every map also has to be part of a quest or have special/good completion items - having some maps just be places to go and kill things, get random loot and some exp seems perfectly fine. I agree that there probably is not enough different difficulty monsters. I don't necessarily think we need more monsters, but rather variations on what we have. If we follow from other games, monsters can get more difficult - just as a human character is more difficult as it gains level, there isn't anything to say we couldn't have level 10 orc barbarians around in dungeons - orcs should be able to gain exp also. I suspect some maps are really popular not as much because of the treasure (you do it once you're probably not going to see much different treasure - and in fact, if you want diverse treasure, random maps can be pretty good as quality of treasure goes up as you get deeper), but rather players are looking for specific monsters. If you're at the right level, hill giants provide good exp for killing them. Likewise, if you're a dragon, you're looking for creatures that drop the right flesh, and in many cases, your choices are limited - turns out being a cannibal is a pretty good approach. While perhaps not really a way to make better maps, a way to offload this may be more random dungeons with specific types of monsters - one could imagine a hill giant cave, say 10 levels deep - a good place to go kill hill giants instead of raffle. Likewise, an alternative dragon cave, etc. I'm wary of limiting players from only doing a quest map once - a few reasons. First - it can limit play options to the point where a player doesn't have a lot of places to go. Second, it can be hard to enforce - how do you really note they completed the quest? This could lead to a case where the player wants to go to the dungeon for exp/whatever, so just skips the last phase that marks the quest as being completed (doesn't turn the item in, kills everything but the boss, etc). So in that regard, doesn't really help things out. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] map design guideline (was: Summary)
> introduce a "map design guideline". Only maps which won't violate the > policy are allowed to add / stay. Yes. I'd be slightly less restrictive, though - you'd be allowed to commit part of a quest, adding other elements later on, provided you document somewhere what you plan to add / you commit not too long after. > A map should make sense. It has to be harmonious and coherent. For > example, if you slay a dragon and reach the dragon hoard, you'll find > some random_treasure, like a hauberk, dagger, water, cake, ... Wow, this > dragon was able to collect real valuable stuff... But usually the dragon > will burn the hoard with fire. No treasure at all. > > So a dragon should have a cave, with an entrance where you can fight and > hopefully slay it and at the end of the cave the dragon hoard. Don't let > the dragon burn it's own treasure. Well, you could argue the player should be smart enough to figure a way to have the dragon don't burn his treasure :) > What's the idea of this map? Why there are lot of trapped monsters. Who > trapped the dragons there? For which purpose? Why they're not famished or > who fed them and how? Or how do they come in and out? What's making a > titan there? Having some vampires in the underground town seems > reasonable, but what about the titan and the dragons? I don't understand > this map. And there are lot of maps like this. Well, IMO we shouldn't try to explain *all* maps and *everything*. Overall story, then small hints, whatever. For instance, from the wiki, why the world evolved this way. Trying to justify the existence of all and every maps is an exercice in futility imo - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to harmonize maps. (and if you start in this way: what is a Bed to Reality? why do you return there when you die? why do maps reset? :)) > Indeed, the most popular map is raffle1_3. > > > Ok, on metalforge it's "ElectricHatchery", but that's only because > "Flank" is camping there all the time. Other player hardly gets the > chance to do this quest. > > > So maps where player could easily gain exp are prefered. It's important > to keep / create some hack and slay maps. > > Or maps with easy treasure are also very popular. I guess intwell is > played so often because of the easy to get glowing crystal... This is more a map balance issue. Arguably raffle gives enough benefits to be always claimed. So either reduce those benefits, or add more maps. This is also server dependant, btw - I don't know if all servers have map claims. > Another point, the mix of monsters. Should also be coherent. Maybe we > need some more monster types, to avoid a bad mix of monsters without > having just one or two monster types in the map. Yes. And describe what monsters can coexist with what monsters. > There's also some coding stuff missing. Don't let players solve a quest > more than once. Flag a player who started a quest and only let players > enter the quest map with this flag and without the "quest finished flag". This is really a map design issue. Using existing archetypes, or scripting, it should be the map maker's decision to implement such a restriction. At some point common functions could be added, or examples written to help map makers. As I said in another mail, I'm ready to script functions map makers need :) About the "catching" part, that could be part of the game, but remember that having a player-managed economy (in this case monsters trading) is hard to maintain. Also I don't really want players to need to catch monsters sometimes to train just because no one did it. Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.free.fr [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de l'aléatoire !] pgpmzYmBkIl7X.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
