Creatures needed data just keep on increasing as the game becomes more complex, and the previous creature.def is pretty lacking.
This means as well that the game should read from the map file the creature class to add and calculate its stats (add base equipment as well) before spawinig it.
All creatures should obey their stats table
This creates issues like being able to declare super-creatures on level file that totally breaks the game.
and super creatures should be declared on the creature.def and given a proper skin/color distinction over its common version.
Danimal {l Wrote}:The troll vs kobold case is just the result of creatures not having defined a base attack (nor attack growth per level) and base HP, plus their tendency to cat stare contests and air attacking.
Once we set it like proposed, troll will start with something like 50 HP and 10 damage and kobold 10 HP and 1 damage. Then figths will be more realists, balancing them will be something we do after creatures properly engage and try to kill each other, so a spider cant kill a dragon.
Im fine as long as that doesnt make creatures stare at each other for a while before starting combat, but isnt it like what we already have?
The good point is that it is simple. The problem is that you cannot attack one strong creature with loads of weak ones. With this logic, ants would not surviveBertram {l Wrote}:Don't misunderstand me, i think the current system concerning hunger and drowsiness is working quite fine already, but if we are to add support for a threat system (which is not far from the current one after all), we should make the fighting creatures very likely to go to combat, and workers likely to flee, whatever the threat, unless both are dropped next to an enemy.
This means the threat should make the creature flee if it is sure to die on first blow only, again, unless dropped next to the enemy.
This also means the threat is directly linked to damage done by the enemy creature in this case, IMO.
What do you think of my proposal?
The good point is that it is simple. The problem is that you cannot attack one strong creature with loads of weak ones. With this logic, ants would not survive
I do think it's not a problem since I wouldn't want all my weaklings to go get crushed by themselves unless I decide to drop them on the big boss myself.
Im still defending to just have a few simple conditions a creature decides to figth or not, Hp and morale. Werent they supposed to be evil bloodthirsty monsters?
Bertram {l Wrote}:@everyone:
--> Shall we make a creature consider the threat and allies along, or should we make it go when healthy enough?
Danimal's proposal to check only one's own health sounds pragmatic, simple and easier to maintain. I'd rather go that way.
What do you think, guys?
I also think it is a good thing to have creatures that flee. But we could relate it to some creature definition value so that when they see a dangerous creature, they attack or flee depending on that probability (I am not talking about weak units, that's another subject).
Then, you're thinking about a fixed value depending on the creature specy? Would then a "courage" percentage value be what you think about?
All attack at first sigth but if any of those fails, the creatures runs away
Yes, something like that. Natural fighters (even weaks) will almost always go to fight. But some like wizards would flee because they are not natural fighters. IMHO, that's not related to the surrounding creatures. Note that increasing the "courage" as the creature is leveling up makes sense. This way, a level 1 wizard would much more flee than a level 30, which sounds like normal.Bertram {l Wrote}:Then, you're thinking about a fixed value depending on the creature specy? Would then a "courage" percentage value be what you think about?
I agree, I think is is better to separate things. But I think Bertram's proposal of influencing heals regenration depending on hunger/drowsiness is interesting. Note that actually, hunger/drowsiness affects how the creature works. That means that if a player do not make enough dormitory/hatchery, his creatures will not level up. Which is already a big handicap.Danimal {l Wrote}:drowsiness and hunger would be redundant if we check (and implement) a mood system: both of those would put a creature in a bad mood if not fulfilled and thus make it run. A happy creature should figth anyways if dropped over an enemy no matter how drowsy or hungry it is.
Considering that they only consider going eating/sleeping when under 50%, I would say that by low, I would consider 10% or lessBertram {l Wrote}:And by low, I think it would be < 1/5 of the total.
No, we don't look at nearby allies. I was thinking that, for example, a level 1 wizard would have up to 50% chances to flee (depending on his ennemies stats) when choosing if he engages. IMHO, flee would be something like panic rather than deciding to not fight because of some logic reason.Danimal {l Wrote}:drowsiness and hunger would be redundant if we check (and implement) a mood system: both of those would put a creature in a bad mood if not fulfilled and thus make it run. A happy creature should figth anyways if dropped over an enemy no matter how drowsy or hungry it is.What if i have a legion of high level bugs and set it against a demon? would all of them run because individually they are no match? we check for nearby allies?
No, we don't look at nearby allies. I was thinking that, for example, a level 1 wizard would have up to 50% chances to flee (depending on his ennemies stats) when choosing if he engages. IMHO, flee would be something like panic rather than deciding to not fight because of some logic reason.
Yes, as Akien said, there is no need to rush in there. That can be done later if needed. For now, we can keep flee for wounded creatures.Bertram {l Wrote}:IMHO, I would not add it in the first implementation cycle, and then make it up to 30% max to flee once implemented, when we are fine-tuning that part.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests