I'm posting this here, as well as ForumsHQ.com (http://forumshq.com/showthread.php?p=91463#post91463").? Feel free to post at either or both sites.
For anyone that isn't familar with GreaterMud (http://greatermud.com"), GreaterMud (http://greatermud.com") is a majormud clone project.? The concept is to make a game with unique content and similar gameplay.? The purpose is so the games can be continued with both content and coding updates.
Atm I've been doing some of my first game play in the realm and I've noticed a few detail oriented issues.? Granted GreaterMud (http://greatermud.com") is still in its just in conception but the question I pose, which details are important?
MajorMud has been flawed with coding problems and limitations for as long as its been around.? I'm going to list a few, in no particular order, such limitations and see what input I can get from players.? Feel free to add limitation issues, I couldn't possibly list them all in one sitting.
- Party limitation
- Maximum players 6
- Experience rollover
- Room limitation
- Maximum 17 visible items
- Maximum 15 hidden items
- User limitation
- Maximum duration spells 10
- Maximum items 100
- Monster limitation
- Movement restricted by group
- Movement restricted by index
- Movement restricted by map#
Each limitation has its draw backs.? But they each serve a purpose in the game.? Unfortunately, Majormud was built around its limitation rather than fixing them as the game progressed.? Some errors don't always come up, such as exp rollover, but are still present.? Are these
important to the game you know?? Or would you like to see them fixed??
What details/restrictions/limitations am I missing?
Should there really even be a maximum players in a party? I understand the whole "what about healing spells" but since we own the code, we can now make it so that party healing spells can have a per-party-size mana cost?
For experience rollover it shouldn't matter if you are in a party or not. It should be the same as being in the same room attacking the same monster and not being in a party. Now _that_ formula should be changed to scale to the players level.
Maximum 17 visible items/Maximum 15 hidden items. Both of these should be unlimited as well. However each room should be automatically cleaned up every 1 hour. Each item should have a modifier. 0 means delete this item after 1 hour. 24 means delete this item after 1 day, etc... stupid things like a 'club' should delete in 1 hour. Things like 'sunburst necklace' should delete after say 6 months. Stashed items could have a *1.5 modifier on top of visible items.
User limitations again should be unlimited .. if somebody wants 10000 clubs who cares if it isn't maxing out their encumb? Again since you own the code now, you can do optimizations to increase the performance if it starts to become a problem (use a hash table rather than binary searching a list, etc...)
As for monster limitation, why not have all 3 types .. that way you have some redundancy and can create some unique monster roaming types ?
Quote from: soul on May 03, 2006, 12:43 PM
Should there really even be a maximum players in a party? I understand the whole "what about healing spells" but since we own the code, we can now make it so that party healing spells can have a per-party-size mana cost?
Yes there should be. Otherwise gangs would be scripting with a party of 20 lvl 10's and 1 lvl 50 healer using party heal and not engaging. I swear what is it with MajorMUD players wanting to make the game way too easy. The whole objective to games are challenge. 6 players per party is the DnD universal number. Most DnD games you play as well limit you to 6 players.
QuoteFor experience rollover it shouldn't matter if you are in a party or not. It should be the same as being in the same room attacking the same monster and not being in a party. Now _that_ formula should be changed to scale to the players level.
There goes the idea of mooching off high level characters xp. And that means no more powerleveling lower gang members. Good/Bad? You decide. I think its a 50/50 decision that should just be left alone.
QuoteMaximum 17 visible items/Maximum 15 hidden items. Both of these should be unlimited as well. However each room should be automatically cleaned up every 1 hour. Each item should have a modifier. 0 means delete this item after 1 hour. 24 means delete this item after 1 day, etc... stupid things like a 'club' should delete in 1 hour. Things like 'sunburst necklace' should delete after say 6 months. Stashed items could have a *1.5 modifier on top of visible items.
I semi agree. Having all rooms cleared at the same time every hour will cause server lag. No one wants that. Instead it should run off either a timer in which 10 minutes after a player enters a room all items poof. if there are no players entering any of the rooms.. no need to run it, because nothing will drop. Also I think that all items should be deleted no matter what type of item it is. Thats one problem I have with majormud. People hide things in areas no one will find it, and then they leave the server. Thats an issue especially when you have a very populated server.
QuoteUser limitations again should be unlimited .. if somebody wants 10000 clubs who cares if it isn't maxing out their encumb? Again since you own the code now, you can do optimizations to increase the performance if it starts to become a problem (use a hash table rather than binary searching a list, etc...)
Can you carry 10000 clubs? Maybe we should allow them to wear 50 rings as well? Come on.
QuoteAs for monster limitation, why not have all 3 types .. that way you have some redundancy and can create some unique monster roaming types ?
I see it as the point of using charm monster. A LONNGG time ago you could charm a hellhound and pull it into slums. It was fun and gave more reason to use charm. But there are problems with that. Those boundries are in place for a reason. High level characters could charm a dragon, and pull it into town. ... I know it sounds funny, but that wont work.
In closing
Most of these limits were put into place for a reason, not just due to server speeds at the time. Sometimes its just to leave well enough alone.
To Vitoc.
Be careful with your exp calculation as well.
Lance originally messed up by making all party exp round down.
IE
2 players killing one rat worth 9 xp
9/2 = 4.5 rounded down to 4
4 to first player
4 to second player
18 players killing one rat worth 9 xp
9/10 = .9 rounded down to -1
-1 to first player
-1 to second player
...etc
if any of those players started at 0 exp there would be a problem.
rumors had it, you would instantly have your exp set to the max value of long which is 2,147,483,647 (i think)
Quote from: ghaleon on May 03, 2006, 05:20 PM
Yes there should be. Otherwise gangs would be scripting with a party of 20 lvl 10's and 1 lvl 50 healer using party heal and not engaging. I swear what is it with MajorMUD players wanting to make the game way too easy. The whole objective to games are challenge. 6 players per party is the DnD universal number. Most DnD games you play as well limit you to 6 players.
I hate limits. In real life if I wanted to get 1000 people together to go kill an angry wolf, I could with no problems. I completely agree with you that having no challenge sucks and I wish we could get away from it. I think you missed my point on the not attacking and healing issue. Lets say you have a party heal spell
greater healing rain (10 MA/person) - Heals for UP TO (100 / # party members)
So you cast it on just you and a friend .. 20 mana, each of you can get healed for up to 50 health
ON a party of five .. 50 mana, each person can get healed for up to 20 mana
Of course that formula would need to be adjusted, it shouldn't drop so significantly for the mana cost, but you get my point.
Quote
There goes the idea of mooching off high level characters xp. And that means no more powerleveling lower gang members. Good/Bad? You decide. I think its a 50/50 decision that should just be left alone.
I agree with you here .. good or bad who knows .. however you seem to be a big proponent of keeping challenge in the game. why should power leveling be allowed?
Quote
I semi agree. Having all rooms cleared at the same time every hour will cause server lag. No one wants that. Instead it should run off either a timer in which 10 minutes after a player enters a room all items poof. if there are no players entering any of the rooms.. no need to run it, because nothing will drop. Also I think that all items should be deleted no matter what type of item it is. Thats one problem I have with majormud. People hide things in areas no one will find it, and then they leave the server. Thats an issue especially when you have a very populated server.
Again as always my ideas need adjusting. Your explanation is why I proposed what I did. I HATE when people stash things in god knows where, and you have to have a sysop either find it or flush it.? I think rarer items should be allowed to be hidden longer, but not forever. Maybe 6 months is too much .. maybe 1 month. But I know there was one occasion where I went on vacation, left my mud going, came back 2 weeks later and found that i had died day 1.. I sure as hell would bitch if my items poofed, especially if up until then i was a devoted almost always at keys player (which i am).
QuoteCan you carry 10000 clubs? Maybe we should allow them to wear 50 rings as well? Come on.
Again an exaggeration (sp?) but you get my point. How do you define "carrying too much". Can a human carry 10 clubs? probably? 15.. maybe? 20 .. probably not. but what about a bigger human. what about a half-ogre. You should read about fuzzy logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic , when is too much really too much??
either we decide we want to have a truly realistic game and be completely stringent, or we dont limit things but find creative ways of limiting them. For example .. sure you can carry 10000 clubs, but how about having a 10% chance every room move of dropping some of them? im not saying this is a solution, but rather than hard coding limits make it fun for the player!
Quote
I see it as the point of using charm monster. A LONNGG time ago you could charm a hellhound and pull it into slums. It was fun and gave more reason to use charm. But there are problems with that. Those boundries are in place for a reason. High level characters could charm a dragon, and pull it into town. ... I know it sounds funny, but that wont work.
im not going to comment on this one really .. i do not even know the full scope of this question, i was just giving my initial impression.
Quote from: ghaleon on May 03, 2006, 05:32 PM
To Vitoc.
Be careful with your exp calculation as well.
Lance originally messed up by making all party exp round down.
IE
2 players killing one rat worth 9 xp
9/2 = 4.5 rounded down to 4
4 to first player
4 to second player
18 players killing one rat worth 9 xp
9/10 = .9 rounded down to -1
-1 to first player
-1 to second player
...etc
if any of those players started at 0 exp there would be a problem.
rumors had it, you would instantly have your exp set to the max value of long which is 2,147,483,647 (i think)
.9 rounded down would be 0, not -1, no?
I forget if I'm using an unsigned long or if it's just a signed long. If I am using a signed long, rollover wouldn't be possible for a very, VERY long time.
Btw, in case anyone was wondering...
The absolute max for a signed long is:
9,223,372,036,854,775,808
The absolute max for an unsigned long is:
18,446,744,073,709,551,616
I don't think we'll have to worry about people maxing out for a while... ;)
I like the idea of having 2 types of partys. A small party called a group and a large party called a party.
Group
Max of 6 members
Functions very similar to a current majurmud party
Party
Limit would be much higher - around 25 or so.
Group spell effects would be diminished to some degree.
Only useful when doing a huge boss run.
The party option could be a future addon - doesn't need to be available until higher levels are obtained.
The idea is you could have different rules governing the different types of groups. If a sysop didn't want the party option they they could disable it.
As for room limitation: Would be nice to have more space in any given room, both visible and hidden, but there needs to be a reasonable limit say 50 visible and 20 hidden. I use the limited room space quite often for fighting big bosses. I fill the room with torches so my death piles flow to a safe room.
Max items: If your encumberance allows more space then you can carry more items.
Max spells: This limitation is in place due to poor game design. Better spell design and monster design should be able to help with this problem. I like the idea of have no limits on the number of spells cast on a character.
Monster movement: I like the idea of multiple types of monster movement. Perhaps 3 or 4 differnt styles of movement. Movemement style would be assigned to the monster. This would allow for more unique areas and bosses. Also, make it easier to add new types of monster movement in the future.
$$$: It would be nice if $$$ was automatically exchanged for a higher currency. It's such a pain in the ass to cash in copper, silver and gold. Persoanlly, I don't feel that cashing in copper for silver adds to gameplay. Also, it would make for cleaner realms. No more 20,000 silver hidden in every room in barren hills. Anyway, its something that should be discussed.
Sorry I haven't been around much:
Party size: 6 = good default party size
If you want parties bigger than that put in a skill quest such as leadership. Leadership would work by allowing the player with the skill to increase his or her party size by the value of the skill. I think bigger parties are great but they do need to have a purpose in the game such as huge battles or storming a castle.
Room restrictions for items: should be unlimited
I personally think that item deletion however should be timer dependant and based on what the items construction quality and if applicable their magic level is. Secondly visible items should also be naturally moved by this I mean they should be picked up by wondering monsters and npcs and dropped on their death. I'm sure I've posted on both of these issues before though.
Max held items: Some items are easier to carry then others if you want to limit this then you need to give each item a value that equates to how cumbersome it is to hold the item when not in use. By this you might carry 1000 rings with out a problem but 1000 clubs might cause you to drop some non-worn items. Its realistic but playful at the same time. You could also make it play into stats like agil and charm.
Maximum duration spells 10 - This should be dynamic with no limitation. For the most part this should be self limiting by spell design and mana efficency. I could care less for the benifits of this in mmud its a cheap cheat.
Monster limitation: Monsters need to behave like monsters each type of monster should have its own set of rules for behaving and adhere to those rules.
Undead - can't cross running water, can't enter holy ground.
Wolves, doges and lower creatures: can't open doors. Wild creatures should only move within their own niche areas think ecology you don't find polar bears in philadelphia unless you are at the zoo. Same thing should be true in the game a giant frog shouldn't be found to far from water. If you are far from water what you should find is giant toads. Creatures should only follow you so far out of their niche areas and then they should try to find their way back to their regening area.
Human and other races: These should stay in their own territory for the most part but should have further behavioral rules based on the class asinged to them.
Money should never auto exchange itself however non-creature monsters like orcs or goblins should pick up money left on the ground.
What if we made a raid option, like in many mmorpgs, the raid links the parties to move together, area bless/healing spells remain in normal party, and area attack spells dont hit the rest of the raid.
Quote from: The Crazy Animal on May 05, 2006, 01:31 AM
Sorry I haven't been around much:
Party size: 6 = good default party size
If you want parties bigger than that put in a skill quest such as leadership. Leadership would work by allowing the player with the skill to increase his or her party size by the value of the skill. I think bigger parties are great but they do need to have a purpose in the game such as huge battles or storming a castle.
Room restrictions for items: should be unlimited
I personally think that item deletion however should be timer dependant and based on what the items construction quality and if applicable their magic level is. Secondly visible items should also be naturally moved by this I mean they should be picked up by wondering monsters and npcs and dropped on their death. I'm sure I've posted on both of these issues before though.
Max held items: Some items are easier to carry then others if you want to limit this then you need to give each item a value that equates to how cumbersome it is to hold the item when not in use. By this you might carry 1000 rings with out a problem but 1000 clubs might cause you to drop some non-worn items. Its realistic but playful at the same time. You could also make it play into stats like agil and charm.
Maximum duration spells 10 - This should be dynamic with no limitation. For the most part this should be self limiting by spell design and mana efficency. I could care less for the benifits of this in mmud its a cheap cheat.
Monster limitation: Monsters need to behave like monsters each type of monster should have its own set of rules for behaving and adhere to those rules.
Undead - can't cross running water, can't enter holy ground.
Wolves, doges and lower creatures: can't open doors. Wild creatures should only move within their own niche areas think ecology you don't find polar bears in philadelphia unless you are at the zoo. Same thing should be true in the game a giant frog shouldn't be found to far from water. If you are far from water what you should find is giant toads. Creatures should only follow you so far out of their niche areas and then they should try to find their way back to their regening area.
Human and other races: These should stay in their own territory for the most part but should have further behavioral rules based on the class asinged to them.
Money should never auto exchange itself however non-creature monsters like orcs or goblins should pick up money left on the ground.
I like and agree with everything said here. Especially the whole "monsters pickup" thing. Thats realistic. Also when you kill a monster, their weapon, shield should drop as well. It may not be worth much, but thats a realistic aspect majormud couldnt do because of lag.
Quote from: DeathCow on May 05, 2006, 01:56 AM
What if we made a raid option, like in many mmorpgs, the raid links the parties to move together,? area bless/healing spells remain in normal party, and area attack spells dont hit the rest of the raid.
I thought about this already but don't know if the system would handle what I would call the ideal for it. Basicly the leadership score would translate to how many additional parties could be sub-partied under the main group. They would then fill the ranks going from backrank to frontrank with a 8 subleader formation of 3x3. The leadership score needed for this would start at 3 with those points going for the additional 3 party spots. After 3, each aditional leadership point would open up a subleader spot up to the max of 11 points. After 11 leadership points other party formations or party bonuses could be put in place such as all party members gain +1 dmg to frontrank gains +1ac, midrank gains +2ac, backrank gains +3ac.
Quote from: DeathCow on May 03, 2006, 05:07 AMParty limitation
Maximum players 6
I'd like to see this bumped up, possibly controlled by INT/WIL (and maybe to a lesser degree, AGL). I'd like the base number to start at
3-4 (for 50 INT, 50 WIL, for example), and then go up/down from there based on some formula. Someone mentioned a Leadership quest for higher values, and this seems reasonable (but I still don't see the harm in controlling this via a formula instead of having a static value of six).
If you wanted to be really clever, you could use the average INT/WIL of the party leader and the party members with the two lowest INT/WIL to determine what the limit is. (Thus basing it not just on the leader, but also the people in the party (are they intelligent enough to communicate group actions, in other words). Care would be needed such that you couldn't get around this limitation by inviting the smart people first, etc.
QuoteExperience rollover
Is this really still an issue with parties in MajorMUD? Definitely something that should be fixed if it is.
QuoteRoom limitation
Maximum 17 visible items
Maximum 15 hidden items
Should be unlimited. If not that, then the number of items in a room should be based on their
weight. In other words, you could fit hundreds or thousands of scrolls in a room, but only a few full corselets. If you go this route, you might also consider adding a "Max Enc" field to rooms, in this way you could create "cramped" rooms. For gang houses, I'd urge a "Max Items" field as well (which would control the max visible or hidden items in a room) to avoid hoarding.
QuoteUser limitation
Maximum duration spells 10
Maximum items 100
The duration spell limit needs to go badly. As it seems you're starting fresh, none of the quirks of MajorMUD should matter (in other words nothing that RELIES on the max duration spells being limited to 10 will matter).
As for items, this one is a little more complicated. I could see limiting this to 100, and then adding an ability (+MaxItems) and putting that on, for example, a "Backpack". This would let you increase the number of items players could carry by a static number so long as they have the +MaxItems item in their inventory (if they drop it/give it away they would be stopped from moving). If you wanted to make it really complicated, you could make backpack items actually hold the items within them (so if you gave the backpack to someone else, they'd get everything in it). Nested items, in other words. But this is a major change, and how you'd handle the inventory display is another matter (either show the contents in paranthesis, or add a "look
in <item>" command to look within nested items).
QuoteMonster limitation
Movement restricted by group
Movement restricted by index
Movement restricted by map#
You're talking about monsters going outside of their normal roaming area? For roaming boss monsters this would seem to be a necessity, but for normal monsters I don't see the point (generally). Luring dragons out into a normal area would be an easy way to kill newbies though, so I'd suggest care be taken if you remove these limitations.
And it's been too long since I've played/hacked MajorMUD to remember any other limitations. Oh, max spells you can learn is 100. I don't know how you'd handle that. Max keys is 50 I think. Might have a "keyring" item to allow you to carry extra keys (or with nested items above, allow you to organize keys onto custom keyrings (these would literally be custom/dynamic items)).
Anyways, my two cents. =)
Nested containers make me very happy. Would love to see that sort of thing.
As for displaying them, perhaps list inventory listing as usual, show backpack as in the inventory but worn, and list container contents vertically when you look in it. Containers should definately be a bit limited, so the contents spam ought to be minimal. Something like:
You are carrying 3 torch, waterskin, chainmail tunic, backpack (worn), dildo, rusty dagger, etc.
'look in backpack'
Backpack:
iron ration
3 bread
ale
Medical Warning: Do not keep your dildo next to your rusty dagger.
Quote from: Psycho on May 08, 2006, 08:50 PM
Nested containers make me very happy. Would love to see that sort of thing.
Yup, would also be useful on quests as a little gimmick perhaps. Give players an envelope with a letter in it, etc. Instead of the silly spells with treasure chests, actually give them a treasure chest item that they can open and look inside of (and get items from).
This also requires dynamic items though (all items currently are static).
Definatly a must.
A way to get rid of power leveling. Maybe. Track per play damage and assign a percentage of exp equal to percentage of damage.
Player 1 does 90 damage player 2 does 10 damage, player 1 gets 90% of exp, player 2 gets 10% exp.
If the percentage is small enough to go to less than 1 exp, then the player should not be fighting with such a highlevel player and with people more his level.
Onlyproblem I see would be keeping track of engagement / rengagment totals. or if someone stops fighting should they still get exp? no clue if it is possible or not.
Quote from: ghaleon on May 03, 2006, 05:32 PM
To Vitoc.
Be careful with your exp calculation as well.
Lance originally messed up by making all party exp round down.
IE
2 players killing one rat worth 9 xp
9/2 = 4.5 rounded down to 4
4 to first player
4 to second player
18 players killing one rat worth 9 xp
9/10 = .9 rounded down to -1
-1 to first player
-1 to second player
...etc
if any of those players started at 0 exp there would be a problem.
rumors had it, you would instantly have your exp set to the max value of long which is 2,147,483,647 (i think)
That'll stop people from having 2nd chars as healers too....
I take it this will effect players engaging that arent in a party? That might be a problem with high lvl ppl scripting in easier areas and kill stealing.
and if it only effects parties... then what would stop people from just using megamud to follow the other character?
Quote from: chromis on May 08, 2006, 11:48 PMPlayer 1 does 90 damage player 2 does 10 damage, player 1 gets 90% of exp, player 2 gets 10% exp.
This would penalize healers (yeah Priests do more damage lately, but combat types still do significantly more damage; maybe this will change with GMud, but I dunno) and possibly other healer/combat mix classes as well.
I would like to see power level limited in some way and I kind of like the idea but I can't see it going very far if it doesn't work into a valid party fairly. The only way I can think of doing it a little more even handed is going the root of sub-dividing the exp further this would make something like that a little more fair to healers and non-tanks that need to break combat alot to heal or use and pay via exp other skills in battle.
From total exp value:
30% gets used for all attacking players
45% gets subdivided based on dmg
10% gets used as a BS bonus (if contact is made)
5% gets used as a kill bonus
10% gets used as a healer bonus (based on damage healed to other players still in combat)
If no one qualifies for a portion of the damage it gets folded into the general dmg bracket. The bonuses would be small in some cases but every bit helps when looking at the total picture.
kinda takes all the fun out of sneaking out to AC at lvl 1 and mooching off higher lvl ppl :) But other than that I see nothing wrong with that kind of forumla.
Well if you want to change the way exp's given out, if you've ever played Tele-Arena you get exp per hit. It's based off of damage done, you get a percent of exp. it defintaly cut down on power leveling in the game. And when you kill the monster it doesn't give out ending exp.
If none of that makes any since, i haven't slept in 32 hours.
not a big fan of telearena
can't say I'm a fan of getting exp for not killing a monster.
In general the exp format will remain the same. We may create a way to compensate people who break combat for healing and blessing.
Blah let them suffer :) Its only ever is a big deal when you break combat on a boss to heal someone and it dies before you re-attack. If anything maybe you should look at that.
I could see having an attacker flag or somehting like that; that gets removed if you leave the room but otherwise entitles you to part of the reward as long as your still alive, not dropped, and still in the room.
Can you carry 10000 clubs? Maybe we should allow them to wear 50 rings as well? Come on.
No, I can not carry 10,000 clubs, I can not cary 100 clubs, not because I am not strong enough, but because they are to bulky... I can cary a 100 pound bag, I would have a hell of a time to swing my sword while carrying it, but I can carry it.
Folks, I do not know how it is going, but I do like what I am seeing. Lots of imput, and lots of thought going into it.
No, I do not send in donations for a web site, now want to talke about donations for the new GreaterMud??? that would be a different story.
10,000 clubs is such a stupid example. Of course no one is going to carry 10,000 clubs. Trying to make a point that no one can carry 10,000 clubs because they would be too hard to handle assumes that the clubs are large. Well, if a club is light enough that you could carry 10,000 of them with out exceeding your encumberance limit then I would assume that the clubs are very very small, perhaps paper clubs. In which carrying 10,000 clubs might not be a problem. It would be like carrying 10,000 silver. Heh, I don't think I could carry 10,000 silver. I'm assuming silver is in the form of a coin, but even then 10,000 coins would be very difficult to carry. Perhaps it could be done but only with some pants with lots of big pockets. So if a character was neaked then they wouldn't be able to carry as much silver bacause they would only have their hands and oraphices to hold the coins. Point is - realistic is not realistic. Max number of items should only be limited by encumberance. If item weight is done correctly then there is no need to program in the .