Here's two:


1) Framerate
CF only runs at 4 Hz. I see this as a limit. Consider playing quake at 4 Hz; it would suck, wouldn't it?

If CF was made to run at, say, 10 Hz, it would allow for much more dynamic to the game (and reduce my options of numbercrunching and using game mechanics to my advantage, but that's a blow I'm willing to take)

One example: A human warrior in normal terrain moves at a rate of two rooms per second. This means that the smallest possible difference in pace is either twice as fast, or 50% slower (it's possible to bypass this, yes.. But not in a smooth way) 10 Hz would allow for small differences in pace, that albeit small, still matters.


Actually this wouldn't be such a terrible hassle to implement. Not when you compare it to idea nr. 2:

2) Make Armors Matter More Additions (MAMMA)
This would require some rebalancing of the game. But it's the right time for this, since alot of work already has been done in this direction lately.

This revolves in making armor an even bigger issue in defense. Giving it damage reducing functions as well as the occasional blow deflection. Remove the hit/miss ac vs. hitroll check - it's only function is enabling me (and a few others) to spam-perfect defenses very quickly. And a blow that misses... wouldn't that qualify as dodge, anyway? Also, make heavy/bulky (metal) armor mess up the spell-casting of mages and the dodging ability of dexxy classes.

Edit: I just thought of another idea, it's a small one that doesn't qualify for this thread:

3) Change entwine to work as a supercharged cutoff. I.e. It's possible to flee, but it's very difficult. Difficulty depends on the quality of the whip/flail (always harder than fleeing from a pole spec, but getting away from that rat's tail some ####er wrapped around you would be quite feasible).. failed attempts to flee now lag you. Possible outcomes when fleeing are:

* You can either fail completely
* Drag the entwiner into the next room (but you remain fighting and entwined).
* Break the whip and get away
* Pull the whip away from the entwiner and run away with it
* Free yourself from the whip and get away

Balance the probability of outcomes on stats and stuff, in away that keeps entwine roughly as good as it currently is.

Got more ideas? Post them here.

Things that might make me want to play again.

1) Shaman class revamp, they are by far the most boring class. With all the creative talent behind this game I can't believe someone hasn't come up with a much cooler shaman. This one needs a full on revamp, not a few tweaks like anti-paladins got.(P.S. If you do a search I had a cool idea for AP revamp that even Sacer found interesting)

2) Scarab Cabal brought back full force - So Sacer became a Jehovah's witness, let Cyradia step up she can definitely handle it. It won't matter that the player base is so small because very few would join it.

3) Masters - I cringed when I saw the Nexus was brought back, it was my least favorite cabal of all time. Wipe Nexus out and bring back Masters, a place for those who want a Cabal but also want to explore. Tone down the powers to be in line with all the other toned down Cabal powers.

4) Mounts - Kind of silly that all these uber heroes run everywhere. Give heroes the option to have expensive mounts that could be stabled in towns. Mounted combat would be great, would make playing polearm specs worth it just for the charges. Also how great would flying mounted combat versus air forms be? Of course air mounts would suck compare to air forms and be a rare expensive thing but could add a cool dynamic.

5) Aging - When things like Wither affect age, make the players age change to correspond. This way they aren't shocked when the character they've been sinking crazy time into suddenly age dies at lvl 48 because his roleplay wouldn't let him back down from fights with shamans. I'm not bitter, really.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

Do something to make them not the red-headed stepchildren of Thera. What? I don't know.

Right now they have a sad combination of ease, boredom, and weakness.

Playing a shifter is easy mode as far as most things go. No real equipment decisions, no real skill practice, simple combat choices, reduced concern for maladicts.

The flipside is that they are weaker to compensate for this these benefits, and are tactically boring. They don't need an up-tweak or anything, since their simplicity is two-sided, but they're really usually very deep or interesting.

Sadly, I have almost nothing constructive to add. Maybe some sort of combination-shift scheme, that allows you to somehow mix and match different animal forms you learn. Maybe a broad reduction in raw power, but an increase in tactical options. The problem is that giving each form even 4 or 5 skills, which is really not that many, is a huge amount of work given the number of forms in existence.

And then give a bonus to their primary, and nerf their tertiary. It makes sense to me and gives them more varied tactics.

Each form will still only do its one thing well. But now you can do three things (variably well) as a shifter. No, its not overpowered, because you can still only shape on thing at a time. The point is, you now have more tactical choices with three forms and therefore a more interesting style of play.

Some people argue this'll overpower PK by giving people 'power combos' like Owl/Tiger/Porcupine. What are the chances of you getting those three forms anyway? Astronomical. And one of them will not work as effectively as it should. I could still take down that form combo as easily as any shifter with only two of the above. And if someones picked those three, they can't fight in water and moves like crap on land (every can pwn the owl )

I don't think it'd detract from quest forms either. They'd just be the cherry on the animage cake! If someone gets a massively successful pk combo (dolphin/osprey/orangutan) then lower the quest rewards to something appropriate. For me, its fair there's a chance you get these sorts of great shifter combos. The above would still be terrible at taking mobs even if it can pk (it couldn't kill dragons for crap for starters).

Vote yes! It would work and with relatively little effort and tweaking compared to an overhaul.

Yhorian.

I mean why not? The only thing that could possible balance this IMHO is to make third foci be up to third tier form only. Unfortunately this means everyone is still taking an air foci, but now they're getting chewed up and spit out by people who took are as a major/minor.

Pk-wise it seems like any third tier would be nearly useless (except maybe utility for the utility) and if you give 4th tier forms (even downgraded ones) then you end up with major/minor + air as the defacto choice for every shifter. I don't think the imms would go for that. "If we wanted every shifter to have an air form, we'd just give them one."

I could be wrong, but I can't think of a convincing argument for *not* taking air if you plan to pk and have 3 choices.

When I got the griffon quest form, it was far from a good air form. It was basically a lion with wings glued on. It had horrible movement rate, cost far more to fly with than any other airform and cost me about 60 mana per hour to hold in shape.

There were many times I couldn't escape pk because someone had hamstrung me. Or I'd just tried chasing through some mountains/desert with my griffon (it didn't have flyto, something only more major foci holders could get). It did help save on travel and give me a place to hide (up in the air) but in terms of actual airforming, it was terrible. That's why I liked the idea, because I had enough disadvantages and weakness it made it fair. Any other airform could pwn me with protections because I couldn't flee from them (the second they engage, something as slow as the griffon can't flee, can't revert, nada). That meant I was grounded when Lightmage was logged on. An eagle with barrier+nightwalker = sure dead griffon.

That's the kind of setbacks I'd imagine for a third foci air. The same thing would apply to offense, defense, utility and water. You'd take the forms that are pretty crap right now, adjust them slightly, and throw them in as a choice for 'third foci' choosers.

Yhorian.

Because it wouldn't make everybody pick air, is to give shifters two fourth tier form in their major foci. The second fourth-tierer is gotten at hero.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like it. :?)

I suppose that isn't entirely fair as I could imagine taking defense or (possibly) water for the two major forms, but offense and air don't offer much in the way of advantage for having two of them, at least in my opinion.

Seriously, I think 2xoffense could work out very well. Of course, there
are some semi-redundant combos possible, but I think I'd get some use out of all forms. And it lessens the urge to delete because you get a form you hate.

nt

Every form gets at least 1 unique (unique-ish) ability and they scale up in power with level so that every form is "useful" at hero, if only for landing the ever fearful rabies ability with your rabid ferret. Sure the ferret isn't quite as powerful as your tiger, but rabies d00d! Rabies! It's only curable with ass-shots!

Agree in many points. I'd love to see more tactics brought in thru edge choice and/or some sort of minor revamp (I don't think much is needed but maybe I underestimate the coding end).

What I'd love to see is the addition of more controls. Example: control size that would link to reduce/enlarge. The catch is that the shifter can only keep as many active as is now the case meaning that he would have to pick a subset. This opens up control use as a tactical decision.

I think being able to use all inherents in form would be a good idea too.

Also, some mechanism to allow equipment to bleed through to the form. Like a ensconce spell whereby a shifter can take with, into a the target form, certain aspects of his set.

Finally, the ability to use one partial shift while in form. How about a osprey with fangs of the serpent?

I would like to see them bonded to a single animal and see a lot more partial shifts concerning it and skills and magic associated with them. More like were people except not influenced by the moon.

Would be cool to see a half man/half bat suddenly hiss and a cloud of bats descend on someone or a half tiger pounce and begin swinging with claws and wearing armor.

1) A new class being added to the mudscape. I think we'll see tweaking and revamps but not a bona fide new class.

2) Additional options for warriors: You could trade one specialization for 2 legacies in any manner you desired. Also, the addition of double specializations that would add additional skills.

3) Finishing the inherent abilities.

>2) Additional options for warriors: You could trade one
>specialization for 2 legacies in any manner you desired.

Even better idea: you can trade one specialization directly into PK ratio.

roflmao

n/t

That would let you make warriors that were so much tougher that you should just shortcut it and have it instantly rack up your kill count.

The better warrior players could easily make insanely tough combos with that option. The worse/newer players could and probably would make very one-dimensional warriors and not know how to compensate for it. (For example, a warrior that just could not ever kill an even remotely competent invoker on their best day.)

I'm strongly against the idea of double specs for that same reason. Also, when every class has half as many specialization choices as warriors do (projected finish date: April 1, 2052. Hey, it's a stretch goal!) we might be looking for ideas for them again.

Heh, then I was right in putting in the probably won't happen pile, at least until 2052. I obvious do not agree that a warrior sans specialization but with additional legacies would necessarily be the end all. I'm sure there are a few good builds there but those would get tweaked just like legacies/skills have. Maybe a 1-1 instead of a 2-1 as well. Also, I totally agree that warriors have many customization options available and would guess that edges for warriors are probably right up there with removing sleep from the faerie dragon's list of commands...

I tend to think you underestimate the one-dimensionality of a one-spec hero warrior -- I'm kind of reminded of this one Fortress bard back in the day who killed dozens of fire giant warriors and had only one or two other PKs under their belt. I think you'd see a lot of warriors that would be extremely hard for some characters to beat, and that would (if they were smart) choose not to fight other kinds of characters at all.

>Also, I totally agree that warriors have many customization
>options available and would guess that edges for warriors are
>probably right up there with removing sleep from the faerie
>dragon's list of commands...

It's true, I planned for warriors to be one of the last classes. That being said, we already have a lot of ideas I like for warriors and there's relatively few that I like for, say, shapeshifters. So, who knows?

Also, keep in mind that I'm generally only speaking to what I'd be interested in working on. Sebeok, Zulg, Valg, and the rest often tackle projects I'd never personally prioritize to do myself, but nonetheless still value the results of.

The changing of seasons would affect different terrains and different climate patterns different ways:

-Description would change to fit the other season, mobs and areas respectively.

-Season's specialties: During different seasons, different plants, berries and mushrooms would thrive. Mushrooms in Autumn, berries in summer, herbal flowers in the spring, etc.

-Winter would make movement more difficult in snow-covered plains, but would in turn ease the movement in those swamps of northern cool climate that freeze solid and become easier to travel. Areas with harsh winter could be cold during the winter.

-Mob progs would change to reflect the activities of a current season. For example, wolves could get more aggressive in late winter when they are hungry due to having to endure the harsh winter.

-Areas would have logically chosen climate patterns, that could affect on how the area is affected by the changing of seasons.

Winter would make movement more difficult in snow-covered plains, but would in turn ease the movement in those swamps of northern cool climate that freeze solid and become easier to travel. Areas with harsh winter could be cold during the winter.


The last thing the game needs is anything that sucks even MORE god damned movement. Some of this stuff sounds fine, but descriptions changing based on season would be disgustingly annoying to write.

I.e. a system less easter egg hunt or find-the-random-keyword and more reading comprehension based for exploratory rewards.

Also, for explore and observation exp to be decoupled from edges to prevent the exploring kobolds syndrome (similar to the spam perfect defenses on kobolds syndrom of yesteryears).

>Also, for explore and observation exp to be decoupled from
>edges to prevent the exploring kobolds syndrome (similar to
>the spam perfect defenses on kobolds syndrom of yesteryears).

Except as far as I can tell you're the only person concerned by this, because it's really not a problem.

There's so, so, so much more exploration and observation exp out there than you can ever get edge stuffs for. You might as well be saying every character is forced to level in the academy because damn it, they need a bunch of XP to hero and you can get some there.

That you can get from explore/observe xp? I thought about suggesting such a thing, but you know I'm an asshole instead. If it is the case that edge points are effectively capped from non-imm sources, than I'm happy. I'm not happy with any of those sentences, but I think you'll get the gist.

Without going into gory detail, basically, yes. That being said, I'd bet no one yet has gotten (for example) all the edginess you could earn from PK.

So you always need to explore to get what you could get from that, but there's no reason it can't be areas you genuinely don't know well, or a bunch of areas at hero, or whatever. There tends to be a lot greater quantities of XP at the higher levels, too, so ultimately exploring the Tower of Trothon probably overpowers a whole lot of Kobold Warrens.

Of course, exploration XP is always worth move points, so if you want all of those and don't want to train move or wear +move gear you maybe should grind out those kobolds.

I'll make sure only to grind those kobolds when I'm playing a flurry spec.

I'll probably make the superflurry edge level 50 or higher, because let's face it, I'm just that kind of bitch.

1) Levelless, no PK-ranges mud

2) Logical and well defined "wield"

*wipes tears out of his eyes*

That 95% of people don't undestand my ideas from the first attempt.
About 90% still don't get it after two attempts.
And about 80% will never get it.
Beating a dead horse my convince those 5% sometimes.

I understand your idea, I just don't think it's a good one for CF.

That's the no-levels etc. one. The dual wield one I'm ignoring, like all dual wield bugs, requests, or smoke signals.

Has been so after Santa Zulg changed it a long time ago.

Try to build a set of rules that covers all possible situations and you will see how wrong you are.

and you will see that people's opinions on how they prefer the system to be will no longer be the same. And yes, I have tried. Personally, I don't think that having new commands for the sole purpose of giants automatically dual wielding those two-handed weapons they can wield in one hand would be desirable. You assume that everyone would find things more logical the way you want them to be, and that's where you go wrong. It simply isn't possible to cover all possible situations in a way that everyone thinks is the best.

>Personally, I don't think that having new commands for
>the sole purpose of giants automatically dual wielding those
>two-handed weapons they can wield in one hand would be
>desirable.

If you prefer don't give them such a possibility (like now), you just ignore the command, nobody forces to use it, even more, it is optional for implementation. However, it doesn't make the system less logical.

>You assume that everyone would find things more
>logical the way you want them to be, and that's where you go
>wrong.

People who understand logic will find my system more logical (but I don't claim it's perfect). People, who do not understand the whole issue may not produce valuable opinion on the matter. So where I did go wrong?

>It simply isn't possible to cover all possible
>situations in a way that everyone thinks is the best.

That's why I proposed very limited sets of rules that would cover most of situation using similar approach instead of making every situation unique and create a monstrous system.

You went wrong by claiming that the system isn't logical because you can't execute everything in one command. Let me put it this way: What isn't currently covered? I didn't see much more to it beyond merging dual and wear(the issue here is whether the syntax would be intuitive afterwards) and adding both(which only storm paladins would have use for) and remboth(which is a game balance issue, and somewhat similar throwdown was implemented instead of it).

In short, insignifigant.

>You went wrong by claiming that the system isn't logical
>because you can't execute everything in one command.

I don't get it. Where have you got that from?

>Let me put it this way: What isn't currently covered? I didn't see
>much more to it beyond merging dual and wear(the issue here is
>whether the syntax would be intuitive afterwards) and adding
>both(which only storm paladins would have use for) and
>remboth(which is a game balance issue, and somewhat similar
>throwdown was implemented instead of it).
>
>In short, insignifigant.

You clearly miss the key points of my wield idea.
It would be inconvenient to explain them once more from scratch, so just parse the original thread and fetch the addressed issues and assorted answers from there.
In short, it is supposed to make wield command more predictable, work the same way with weapons/items/shields and reduce possible result from many to only two: fail/success.
It also makes weapons/helditems removal more user friendly because you don't have to use keywords (Look how many bug board posts raise keywords issues). There is no way you can convince me that typing separate removal commands for offhand and primary is harder that typing "remove + keyword" (that should be found first and you better hope it is unique, which is not so if you're wielding two the same weapons). After all, you can allow both ways for removal, new and old.
Your dead grip to the "both" command amuses me. The whole purpose for this command is to add new (rare) functionality. If you don't like that functionality, don't use it. You may also drop that command from implementation if you don't want to allow that functionality. You will lose nothing compared with the current system. (assuming you will leave the current hack for storm paladins)
It looks like without "both" command you will find my idea much more logical. Fine.

I'm not against remove <bodypart> -kind of command. I just don't consider it as part of the wield system and don't think that it should be limited to hands only(other bodyparts too), though this raises an bodypart/keyword similarity issue.

"In short, it is supposed to make wield command more predictable, work the same way with weapons/items/shields and reduce possible result from many to only two: fail/success."

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this(I assume that you meant that wield would never remove dual-wielded weapon and that both commands would be 100% independent), but the logic that won the vote was that primary wield is more important and dual wield will be removed automatically if necessary. This leaves dual wield working with the pass/fail logic, depending on primary wield.

If your dual wield logic is the one I put in the parenthesis, I vote no for it, as I prefer the wield never fails -logic.

Don't overestimate voters.
I doubt that people who voted have at best a vague understanding of how "wield" works.
Hell, even you still don't get my system after reading two threads and my numerous answers.

"Wield never fail logic" does not exists as I pointed in the said thread.
In the current system sometimes you will remove your offhand/primary and wield nothing instead (for example if your new weapon is anti-class/alignment or too heavy) while in my system the wield would just fail leaving you with pevious weapons which is better than empty hands. So it depends. In some cases my systems is more safe in other cases the curent system may wield a weapon while my system changes nothing.
In practice, when you use your usual set of weapons, both systems will not fail to wield because it is "assumed" that you're trying to wield a proper weapon.

Also, my system brings the same approach for weapons, held items and shields while the current system not only uses different logic for working with items but also forces you to use a different command "wear" instead of "wield". Also, when you have a shield in offhand, wielding may work differently compared with cases when your offhand is a weapon.

Marcus asked for things that "probably won't happen". You're posting things that "definitely won't happen".

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Never say never.
I may become an implementor one day and do things my way.