Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Rogues, Clubs, etc.

Expand Messages
  • Chris Cotter
    ... [Snip lots of weapon info] The only thing I noticed here that was definitely incorrect was the bit about flails having three heads. It actually doesn t
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 1, 1999
      One of them darn teenagers wrote:
      >
      > First of all, let me make one thing perfectly clear, I am not an
      > expert:
      > just an opinionated youth who's no longer snot nesed because he picks
      > it too
      > much.
      >
      > OK, now here's my blathering.
      >
      > From what I understand from doing minimal background research.
      [Snip lots of weapon info]

      The only thing I noticed here that was definitely incorrect was the bit
      about flails having three heads. It actually doesn't matter. 1, 2, or 3
      heads were all seen. I don't know if anyone is interested, and this is
      not appropriate in scale for the next release, but if we are revamping
      weapons anyway, I have some good, real (as in non-RPG based) background
      material on lots of different weapon types. People on this list seem to
      be a little frustrated at the fairly boring selection of weapons
      available. I can take a look and wee what else is out there that would
      be useful in a rogue-like environment but different from what's already
      in the game. I would also keep in mind how these things could be
      organized into skill sets. I remember someone talking about revamping
      the combat system a while back to allow for differences in weapon types,
      this could probably mesh well with that. (An interesting image - Troll
      assassin with a ballista. For anyone who doesn't know, a ballista is a
      siege weapon sized crossbow. :)

      Comments requested and appreciated.

      //Chris
    • David Loewenstern
      ... Troll ranger, anyway. A stealthy troll is an oxymoron. I hope you re joking. A ballista would make hamburger out of yaktaurs. It s also too big for even
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 1, 1999
        Chris Cotter wrote:
        >
        > From: Chris Cotter <ccotter@...>
        >
        > One of them darn teenagers wrote:
        > >
        > > First of all, let me make one thing perfectly clear, I am not an
        > > expert:
        > > just an opinionated youth who's no longer snot nesed because he picks
        > > it too
        > > much.
        > >
        > > OK, now here's my blathering.
        > >
        > > From what I understand from doing minimal background research.
        > [Snip lots of weapon info]
        >
        > The only thing I noticed here that was definitely incorrect was the bit
        > about flails having three heads. It actually doesn't matter. 1, 2, or 3
        > heads were all seen. I don't know if anyone is interested, and this is
        > not appropriate in scale for the next release, but if we are revamping
        > weapons anyway, I have some good, real (as in non-RPG based) background
        > material on lots of different weapon types. People on this list seem to
        > be a little frustrated at the fairly boring selection of weapons
        > available. I can take a look and wee what else is out there that would
        > be useful in a rogue-like environment but different from what's already
        > in the game. I would also keep in mind how these things could be
        > organized into skill sets. I remember someone talking about revamping
        > the combat system a while back to allow for differences in weapon types,
        > this could probably mesh well with that. (An interesting image - Troll
        > assassin with a ballista. For anyone who doesn't know, a ballista is a
        > siege weapon sized crossbow. :)
        >

        Troll ranger, anyway. A stealthy troll is an oxymoron.
        I hope you're joking. A ballista would make hamburger out of yaktaurs.
        It's also too big for even trolls to carry easily.

        But they could carry large crossbows...
        One improvement that could be made is to crossbow speed. You can
        distiguish between small crossbows (not hand crossbows), which are
        cocked with a stirrup and lever mechanism, and large crossbows, which
        are winched. With sufficient strength, you can get rid of the stirrup
        or replace the winch with a stirrup, shifting the reload speed to the
        next lower category.
        A troll probably could fire a small crossbow as fast as a bow.

        Large crossbows should do quite a bit of damage, but they should also be
        really slow to reload if they're winched. A reasonable way to simulate
        this would be that they only 'f'ire every other try: if you press 'f' a
        second time, it reloads the crossbow. This makes large crossbows
        effective for non-trolls: you can get off a shot quickly, then switch to
        some other weapon and reload after the fight's over.

        Maybe we should use the two-'f' system for both crossbows, to avoid
        confusion, and just make the reloading 'f' much faster for some
        weapons/strengths.

        Off the top of my head, some weapon types that would fit in and be
        interesting:
        - garrotte (reduces the chance of a stabbing victim calling for help,
        even if he survives)
        - boulder (boulder??? Yes. Imagine an ogre...)
        - sai/swordbreaker
        - lance (perfect for centaurs)
        - caltrops
        - brass knuckles/mailed gauntlets/claws/spiked boots (increases unarmed
        damage)
        - net (successful hit does no damage, but prevents target from acting
        for a few rounds -- time enough to draw and use another weapon)

        And some weapon-like "things"
        - potions of smoke (provides missile cover)
        - potions of red pepper (frightens hounds, jackals, and similar dumb
        animals)
        - potions of holy water
        - potions of oil (increases fire damage, just the thing to combine with
        a flaming weapon)
      • Brian C. Robinson
        ... This sounds good. ... Garrottes are basically instant kill weapons, though, and have no value at all unless you get an instant kill. They can t be used as
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 1, 1999
          On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, David Loewenstern wrote:

          > From: David Loewenstern <loewenstern@...>
          > Large crossbows should do quite a bit of damage, but they should also be
          > really slow to reload if they're winched. A reasonable way to simulate
          > this would be that they only 'f'ire every other try: if you press 'f' a
          > second time, it reloads the crossbow. This makes large crossbows
          > effective for non-trolls: you can get off a shot quickly, then switch to
          > some other weapon and reload after the fight's over.
          >
          This sounds good.

          > Off the top of my head, some weapon types that would fit in and be
          > interesting:
          > - garrotte (reduces the chance of a stabbing victim calling for help,
          > even if he survives)
          >
          Garrottes are basically instant kill weapons, though, and have no
          value at all unless you get an instant kill. They can't be used as
          weapons otherwise. And we don't want to encourage insta-kills.

          > - boulder (boulder??? Yes. Imagine an ogre...)
          >
          We could have a whole range of rocks, small, medium, large. Could
          be fun.

          > - caltrops
          >
          Might be difficult to add. Is there currently any precedent for
          items interacting with monsters/players moving over them? Also, how do
          you know you're not carefully picking them up when moving over them and
          not blindly stepping on them?

          > - net (successful hit does no damage, but prevents target from acting
          > for a few rounds -- time enough to draw and use another weapon)
          >
          Sounds cool. Could be a gladiator weapon. Would work well with
          the proposed monster sizes. Small monsters are easier to net than big
          ones.

          "Because most general surfers are ignorant, they will think I'm supporting
          pornography." - Teddy Pastras
          http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/technology/story/20101.html
        • Chris Cotter
          ... First off, I was kidding about the ballista. I was really thinking more along the lines of a trebuchet. :) Other than that, I really like the way this is
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 1, 1999
            "Brian C. Robinson" wrote:
            >
            > From: "Brian C. Robinson" <bcr19374@...>
            >
            > On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, David Loewenstern wrote:
            >
            > > From: David Loewenstern <loewenstern@...>
            > > Large crossbows should do quite a bit of damage, but they should also be
            > > really slow to reload if they're winched. A reasonable way to simulate
            > > this would be that they only 'f'ire every other try: if you press 'f' a
            > > second time, it reloads the crossbow. This makes large crossbows
            > > effective for non-trolls: you can get off a shot quickly, then switch to
            > > some other weapon and reload after the fight's over.
            > >
            > This sounds good.
            First off, I was kidding about the ballista. I was really thinking more
            along the lines of a trebuchet. :) Other than that, I really like the
            way this is going. I think adding these things will really make Crawl a
            better game by adding a whole new level of strategy for advanced
            players, while remaining entirely optional for the beginner.



            >
            > > Off the top of my head, some weapon types that would fit in and be
            > > interesting:
            > > - garrotte (reduces the chance of a stabbing victim calling for help,
            > > even if he survives)
            > >
            > Garrottes are basically instant kill weapons, though, and have no
            > value at all unless you get an instant kill. They can't be used as
            > weapons otherwise. And we don't want to encourage insta-kills.
            This *might* work, if we were careful. First restrict it to things that
            are small enough and have necks. (We could also restrict it by making
            sure the size of the attacker and the attackee match up somewhat.)
            Instead of using it in conjunction with a stabbing, force it to be used
            instead, with a fairly good chance of breaking (depending on stabbing
            skill, dexterity and monster level maybe?) If the garrote breaks, it
            leaves you with no weapon, the monster auto-yells, and gets the next
            attack while you have a hefty EV penalty. This way, a mid to high level
            assassin can garrote a wimpy monster, but it can always remain fairly
            risky. Im not really sure it would be worth the trouble, though it would
            be cool and add some good flavor.


            >
            > > - boulder (boulder??? Yes. Imagine an ogre...)
            > >
            > We could have a whole range of rocks, small, medium, large. Could
            > be fun.
            Why not add different levels of slings? Imagining an Ogre with a boulder
            is scary enough, but one with a boulder in a sling? (Actually, if we
            also implement monster sizes, we could say that a monster of size X
            could throw rocks of size X, and could use up to a size X-1 sling.)

            >
            > > - caltrops
            > >
            > Might be difficult to add. Is there currently any precedent for
            > items interacting with monsters/players moving over them? Also, how do
            > you know you're not carefully picking them up when moving over them and
            > not blindly stepping on them?
            One way would be to have them act as a trap once set, although I don't
            know how monster AI deals with traps. It would have an automatic chance
            to disarm, but wouldn't exercise the traps skill. We could actually
            implement several player-movable/settable traps. Maybe have some of them
            require some level of Traps to set or use. I know people didn't like
            having items disappear while you were off level, but I could imagine
            putting your items in a chest or something, trapping it, and coming back
            a while later to find it surrounded by skeletons... (This is not meant
            seriously.)



            >
            > > - net (successful hit does no damage, but prevents target from acting
            > > for a few rounds -- time enough to draw and use another weapon)
            > >
            > Sounds cool. Could be a gladiator weapon. Would work well with
            > the proposed monster sizes. Small monsters are easier to net than big
            > ones.
            Big monsters could also have a per-round chance of bursting the net.

            I was also thinking of some more exotic weapons, things that are not
            from the standard repertoire of gamers and RPGers. Also, still depending
            on an updated combat system, we could add several interesting types of
            swords, polearms, and all sorts of other things.

            //Chris
          • David Loewenstern
            ... They could be done as slow suffocation: a successful hit prevents the victim from calling for help and causes a certain amount of damage, due to damage to
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 1, 1999
              "Brian C. Robinson" wrote:
              >
              > From: "Brian C. Robinson" <bcr19374@...>
              >
              > On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, David Loewenstern wrote:
              >
              > > Off the top of my head, some weapon types that would fit in and be
              > > interesting:
              > > - garrotte (reduces the chance of a stabbing victim calling for help,
              > > even if he survives)
              > >
              > Garrottes are basically instant kill weapons, though, and have no
              > value at all unless you get an instant kill. They can't be used as
              > weapons otherwise. And we don't want to encourage insta-kills.

              They could be done as slow suffocation: a successful hit prevents the
              victim from calling for help and causes a certain amount of damage, due
              to damage to the windpipe and/or spine (if fatal). Successive hits
              continue the process, due to suffocation. If the assassin misses in any
              round, or breaks off the attack, the victim can breathe, can call for
              help, and the garrotte will no longer be useable as a weapon (the
              initial hit _must_ be a "stab", at least against an armed opponent).

              > > - caltrops
              > >
              > Might be difficult to add. Is there currently any precedent for
              > items interacting with monsters/players moving over them? Also, how do
              > you know you're not carefully picking them up when moving over them and
              > not blindly stepping on them?

              Assume intelligent unconfused creatures always step around them
              carefully, except maybe berzerkers. Only dumb animals would just rush
              through a place littered with caltrops. Stepping carefully, of course,
              cannot be done at a run. The point of caltrops is to slow down your
              pursuers, not to kill them.

              Very small and very large creatures aren't affected by caltrops: rats
              just scurry around them; dragons just barely notice the "thorn" in their
              paws.

              We could implement caltrops as a kind of portable trap, I think, sort of
              like whats-his-name's portable altars.


              >
              > > - net (successful hit does no damage, but prevents target from acting
              > > for a few rounds -- time enough to draw and use another weapon)
              > >
              > Sounds cool. Could be a gladiator weapon. Would work well with
              > the proposed monster sizes. Small monsters are easier to net than big
              > ones.

              Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Perfect and traditional for
              gladiators.
            • Brian C. Robinson
              ... Okay. Although it might be neat to add ballista/catapult fixtures in the dungeon. This would be a big deal of work but would be fun. ... I agree. One of
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 1, 1999
                On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Chris Cotter wrote:

                > First off, I was kidding about the ballista.
                >
                Okay. Although it might be neat to add ballista/catapult fixtures
                in the dungeon. This would be a big deal of work but would be fun.

                > I was really thinking more
                > along the lines of a trebuchet. :) Other than that, I really like the
                > way this is going. I think adding these things will really make Crawl a
                > better game by adding a whole new level of strategy for advanced
                > players, while remaining entirely optional for the beginner.
                >
                I agree. One of the biggest problems with Roguelike is the
                "bigger, badder weapon" phenomena. Most of the game you wander around and
                spend a lot of time comparing average damages, whereas you should be
                thinking strategically based on your character's abilities and skills.

                > > Garrottes are basically instant kill weapons, though, and have no
                > > value at all unless you get an instant kill. They can't be used as
                > > weapons otherwise. And we don't want to encourage insta-kills.
                >
                > This *might* work, if we were careful. First restrict it to things that
                > are small enough and have necks. (We could also restrict it by making
                > sure the size of the attacker and the attackee match up somewhat.)
                > Instead of using it in conjunction with a stabbing, force it to be used
                > instead, with a fairly good chance of breaking (depending on stabbing
                > skill, dexterity and monster level maybe?) If the garrote breaks, it
                > leaves you with no weapon, the monster auto-yells, and gets the next
                > attack while you have a hefty EV penalty. This way, a mid to high level
                > assassin can garrote a wimpy monster, but it can always remain fairly
                > risky. Im not really sure it would be worth the trouble, though it would
                > be cool and add some good flavor.
                >
                It would be quite a bit of trouble, because we would have to
                define necked and unnecked monsters, etc...

                >
                > >
                > > > - boulder (boulder??? Yes. Imagine an ogre...)
                > > >
                > > We could have a whole range of rocks, small, medium, large. Could
                > > be fun.
                >
                > Why not add different levels of slings? Imagining an Ogre with a boulder
                > is scary enough, but one with a boulder in a sling? (Actually, if we
                > also implement monster sizes, we could say that a monster of size X
                > could throw rocks of size X, and could use up to a size X-1 sling.)
                >
                Giants would probably prefer throwing to using a whole cow hide to
                make a sling. I do think the addition of more missile weapons, especially
                throwing axes and throwing daggers would be good. Then you could mix the
                throwing skill and the axe/dagger skill when throwing the weapon, making
                throwing more useful. Also maybe poisoned blow darts and possibly an
                atl-atl (ancient weapon similar to a sling but throws spears).

                > One way would be to have them act as a trap once set, although I don't
                > know how monster AI deals with traps. It would have an automatic chance
                > to disarm, but wouldn't exercise the traps skill. We could actually
                > implement several player-movable/settable traps. Maybe have some of them
                > require some level of Traps to set or use.
                >
                I think adding a set of Trap items wouldn't be a bad idea. I
                guess maybe you could find a box of caltrops, and when you used them the
                box would be gone and you would have a trap. There could also be some
                rope traps or other things. Another use for the trap skill.

                > I know people didn't like
                > having items disappear while you were off level, but I could imagine
                > putting your items in a chest or something, trapping it, and coming back
                > a while later to find it surrounded by skeletons... (This is not meant
                > seriously.)
                >
                This actually isn't a bad idea. And having chests would help
                clutter.

                > I was also thinking of some more exotic weapons, things that are not
                > from the standard repertoire of gamers and RPGers. Also, still depending
                > on an updated combat system, we could add several interesting types of
                > swords, polearms, and all sorts of other things.
                >
                It might be nice to put in some non-medieval European weapons,
                too.

                "Because most general surfers are ignorant, they will think I'm supporting
                pornography." - Teddy Pastras
                http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/technology/story/20101.html
              • Chris Cotter
                ... This could actually lead to some interesting changes in level design. Adding in some sort of orcish fort or something, or an elven fort/castle, could
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 1, 1999
                  "Brian C. Robinson" wrote:
                  >
                  > From: "Brian C. Robinson" <bcr19374@...>
                  >
                  > On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Chris Cotter wrote:
                  >
                  > > First off, I was kidding about the ballista.
                  > >
                  > Okay. Although it might be neat to add ballista/catapult fixtures
                  > in the dungeon. This would be a big deal of work but would be fun.

                  This could actually lead to some interesting changes in level design.
                  Adding in some sort of 'orcish fort' or something, or an elven
                  fort/castle, could lead to a chance to really allow for some interesting
                  strategy. The thief could try and sneak in, the archer could snipe from
                  long range, the magic-user would have lots of choice, depending on their
                  magic flavor. If we make it an optional side-dungeon type thing it would
                  be something else to add to the high-level strategy possibilities. I've
                  heard it mentioned several times that high-level char's all start to be
                  the same. This is isn't terrible necessarily, but adding more
                  interesting things to do with high levels of skills might make
                  specialization a practical option for players. For example, with the
                  fort, a generalized fighter wouldn't be tough enough, a generalized
                  archer wouldn't have enough range, a generalized thief wouldn't have
                  enough stealth, and so on. It could be a nice incentive to 'role-play' a
                  bit more. If we wanted to, we could have the various forts hold some
                  sort of class or strategy specific artifact. While this starts to sound
                  a lot like nethack, we wouldn't have to limit a class to their own
                  dungeon, instead, a wizard could take on the fighters guild, he would
                  just have to be a higher level than the fighter trying to do so.

                  >
                  > > I was really thinking more
                  > > along the lines of a trebuchet. :) Other than that, I really like the
                  > > way this is going. I think adding these things will really make Crawl a
                  > > better game by adding a whole new level of strategy for advanced
                  > > players, while remaining entirely optional for the beginner.
                  > >
                  > I agree. One of the biggest problems with Roguelike is the
                  > "bigger, badder weapon" phenomena. Most of the game you wander around and
                  > spend a lot of time comparing average damages, whereas you should be
                  > thinking strategically based on your character's abilities and skills.
                  >
                  > >
                  > It would be quite a bit of trouble, because we would have to
                  > define necked and unnecked monsters, etc...
                  >
                  Another pie-in-the-sky idea.... We're talking about switching the save
                  files over to XML. why not use it elsewhere? It would probably take lots
                  more work, but if we have the framework in place, monsters, classes,
                  items, races, just about everything could be defined in XML. If we plan
                  it correctly, it could probably help up a lot in the long run by letting
                  us add new features much more painlessly. And, of course, it wouldn't
                  have to be done all at once.

                  > It might be nice to put in some non-medieval European weapons,
                  > too.

                  That was one of my original plans. Medieval Japan has lots of neat
                  things to look at, but that's fairly well known, and not that
                  interesting from a flavor point of view. The difficulty is
                  distinguishing between weapons. Lots of cultures invented a sword, they
                  just designed them differently, or called them different things. If we
                  insert to many weapons that are just like a long sword but called
                  different things, we could end up confusing people. It could probably be
                  a #define exotic_weapons. An artifact shark's teeth sword made from the
                  teeth of the leviathan, discovered at the bottom of the water hell ( I
                  forget the name) would be cool though.

                  //Chris

                  p.s. pardon the rambling. weapon design and implementation and what not
                  is one of my hobbies, so I tend to talk a lot about it.
                • David Loewenstern
                  ... Oh, wait! This could be implemented without ballistae (which I think would be overpowering), but using something else: a wall with _arrow slits_. It does
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jul 1, 1999
                    Chris Cotter wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > This could actually lead to some interesting changes in level design.
                    > Adding in some sort of 'orcish fort' or something, or an elven
                    > fort/castle, could lead to a chance to really allow for some interesting
                    > strategy. The thief could try and sneak in, the archer could snipe from
                    > long range, the magic-user would have lots of choice, depending on their
                    > magic flavor.

                    Oh, wait! This could be implemented without ballistae (which I think
                    would be overpowering), but using something else: a wall with _arrow
                    slits_. It does not interfere (much) with firing from someone next to
                    it, but greatly reduces the chance to hit if the firer is not adjacent.

                    I think ballistae are too powerful. They'd be instant kill for almost
                    anything not protected by magic or a large stone wall. They'd only make
                    sense if you created a bunch of "protection from missiles" magic items.


                    If we make it an optional side-dungeon type thing it would
                    > be something else to add to the high-level strategy possibilities. I've
                    > heard it mentioned several times that high-level char's all start to be
                    > the same. This is isn't terrible necessarily, but adding more
                    > interesting things to do with high levels of skills might make
                    > specialization a practical option for players. For example, with the
                    > fort, a generalized fighter wouldn't be tough enough, a generalized
                    > archer wouldn't have enough range, a generalized thief wouldn't have
                    > enough stealth, and so on. It could be a nice incentive to 'role-play' a
                    > bit more.

                    I like this. Tuning it so that a pure fighter had a chance would be
                    tough, though. It would be hard to do this without ranged attacks, an
                    army, or invisibility. Hmm. Do shields currently block missiles? I
                    could imagine a berzerker simply strapping on a big shield an taking his
                    chances...

                    To make this work for thief/assassin types, we'd have to give very
                    stealthy characters a chance to sneak past alert enemies.

                    > If we wanted to, we could have the various forts hold some
                    > sort of class or strategy specific artifact. While this starts to sound
                    > a lot like nethack, we wouldn't have to limit a class to their own
                    > dungeon, instead, a wizard could take on the fighters guild, he would
                    > just have to be a higher level than the fighter trying to do so.

                    Or even lower level, actually. Opposing types could work great. A
                    wizard could take on a lot of fighters with the help of lots of cloud
                    spells or summoned beasties. A clever fighter could trap a castle of
                    mages into attacking him one at a time from close range (say, through a
                    doorway). An assassin could sneak in and pick off archers one at a time
                    as opportunities presented themselves (the archery won't be as useful
                    _inside_ the fort).

                    >
                    > >

                    > >
                    > Another pie-in-the-sky idea.... We're talking about switching the save
                    > files over to XML. why not use it elsewhere? It would probably take lots
                    > more work, but if we have the framework in place, monsters, classes,
                    > items, races, just about everything could be defined in XML. If we plan
                    > it correctly, it could probably help up a lot in the long run by letting
                    > us add new features much more painlessly. And, of course, it wouldn't
                    > have to be done all at once.
                    >
                    > > It might be nice to put in some non-medieval European weapons,
                    > > too.
                    >
                    > That was one of my original plans. Medieval Japan has lots of neat
                    > things to look at, but that's fairly well known, and not that
                    > interesting from a flavor point of view. The difficulty is
                    > distinguishing between weapons. Lots of cultures invented a sword, they
                    > just designed them differently, or called them different things. If we
                    > insert to many weapons that are just like a long sword but called
                    > different things, we could end up confusing people. It could probably be
                    > a #define exotic_weapons. An artifact shark's teeth sword made from the
                    > teeth of the leviathan, discovered at the bottom of the water hell ( I
                    > forget the name) would be cool though.

                    There are, however, some really bizarre weapons that have popped up here
                    and there, and they'd be great additions. There's a Chinese weapon that
                    amounts to a pair of cannonballs separated by several feet of chain,
                    described in one of the Judge Dee books. You wield them like nunchuks.
                    They do horrific damage, and are very fast. You can wrap one ball
                    around your opponent's weapon and pummel him with the other one. Only
                    problem is you need to think through your moves a little more carefully
                    than with swords -- the whirling cannonballs pick up too much momentum
                    to permit sudden changes in your path. If you miss your target, you
                    could get carried past him. (perhaps: acts like a huge negative
                    modifier on evasion?)

                    Also, some weapons are designed to hurt rather than to kill. They might
                    cause less injury but have a greater chance of frightening the
                    opponent. An example would be barbed nets, lashes or cats-o-nine-tails.
                    >
                    > //Chris
                    >
                    > p.s. pardon the rambling. weapon design and implementation and what not
                    > is one of my hobbies, so I tend to talk a lot about it.
                    >

                    Then you're in a great position to help implement all sorts of fun
                    weapons!
                  • Brent Ross
                    // From: David Loewenstern // // Chris Cotter wrote: // organized into skill sets. I remember someone talking about revamping // the
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jul 1, 1999
                      // From: David Loewenstern <loewenstern@...>
                      //
                      // Chris Cotter wrote:
                      // > organized into skill sets. I remember someone talking about revamping
                      // > the combat system a while back to allow for differences in weapon types,
                      // > this could probably mesh well with that. (An interesting image - Troll
                      // > assassin with a ballista. For anyone who doesn't know, a ballista is a
                      // > siege weapon sized crossbow. :)
                      // >
                      //
                      // Troll ranger, anyway. A stealthy troll is an oxymoron.

                      Troll assassins and rogues work via brute force. They don't have to
                      be stealthy. :)

                      // I hope you're joking. A ballista would make hamburger out of yaktaurs.
                      // It's also too big for even trolls to carry easily.
                      //
                      // But they could carry large crossbows...
                      // One improvement that could be made is to crossbow speed. You can
                      // distiguish between small crossbows (not hand crossbows), which are
                      // cocked with a stirrup and lever mechanism, and large crossbows, which
                      // are winched. With sufficient strength, you can get rid of the stirrup
                      // or replace the winch with a stirrup, shifting the reload speed to the
                      // next lower category.
                      // A troll probably could fire a small crossbow as fast as a bow.
                      //
                      // Large crossbows should do quite a bit of damage, but they should also be
                      // really slow to reload if they're winched. A reasonable way to simulate
                      // this would be that they only 'f'ire every other try: if you press 'f' a
                      // second time, it reloads the crossbow. This makes large crossbows
                      // effective for non-trolls: you can get off a shot quickly, then switch to
                      // some other weapon and reload after the fight's over.

                      I believe that Linley mentioned that crossbows did have the concept
                      of being reloaded at one point.

                      // Maybe we should use the two-'f' system for both crossbows, to avoid
                      // confusion, and just make the reloading 'f' much faster for some
                      // weapons/strengths.

                      Well, the command would already have different speeds for the two
                      different actions so it wouldn't be so bad to make it a bit more variable.
                      There'd have to be a change to the display code so you could easily tell
                      if the crossbow is loaded, but its not too much of a change. This could
                      also be applied to bows, but the system would have to be slightly
                      different (since you can't have an arrow ready and not be wielding the
                      bow). Switching weapons in this case would be slower. As a bonus, 'F'
                      isn't currently used, and this could be used for a load and fire command,
                      thus making things easier for when you want to fire a few shots in a row.


                      Brent
                    • Brent Ross
                      // From: Brian C. Robinson // // On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, David Loewenstern wrote: // // Off the top of my head, some weapon types
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jul 1, 1999
                        // From: "Brian C. Robinson" <bcr19374@...>
                        //
                        // On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, David Loewenstern wrote:
                        //
                        // > Off the top of my head, some weapon types that would fit in and be
                        // > interesting:
                        // > - garrotte (reduces the chance of a stabbing victim calling for help,
                        // > even if he survives)
                        // >
                        // Garrottes are basically instant kill weapons, though, and have no
                        // value at all unless you get an instant kill. They can't be used as
                        // weapons otherwise. And we don't want to encourage insta-kills.

                        There's also the problem that only some monsters are actual targets
                        for a garrotte. The game doesn't carry this type of info, yet. Using
                        a dagger is almost as effective right now. In the local version, I've
                        limited the dagger bonus to the skill level in stabbing. This way
                        the bonus is really only good for the proper classes, and anyone else
                        who chooses to work at it.

                        Brent
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.