Poll: Should objects always be automatically upgraded

From: dazzt
Date: 2002-04-15 14:23:48

This is applicable to every object, but I'll speak of items here since they are a good example.

Quick poll:

Should items automatically have the latest code associated with them, or should the code that was 'current' when the item was created, persist for item's whole life time?

If the code is not upgraded, some items with out-of-date code (possibly being e.g. out-of-tune, or buggy) will persist, unless we either destroy them or do some forced upgrade.

If the code is upgraded, all items will always have the exact same code, so no 'ancient' items will occur, unless a different item is made. This will have implications on the handling of the item data: if the data is changed then the item code must be able to cope with all previous versions of the item.

From: darshan
Date: 2002-05-05 18:40:16
In-Reply-To: 1430

To Raeky and Archantes and whomever it may concern. All instances of an item should be updated together whenever

a) a bug is fixed in it
b) its global properties change (eg. someone changes the way a torch works, or the amount a particular kind of sword does damage or how much it weighs...)

Existing instances of an item should not be upgraded together whenever

a) there is no reason to do this, ever.

If a magical feature is added into an item, but existing items aren't updated, how would we explain it to people who have an older version? They would have the exact same kind of item, except it does less.

If a magical feature is added into an item in a way that explicitly makes it a new, grander, improved, evolutional etc etc model, it will be brought into the game as an altogether new item.

From: raeky
Date: 2002-05-02 21:21:56
In-Reply-To: 1430

if the code just fixes a bug, then they get upgraded, if the code gives new features, then it shouldn't be upgraded, you'd have to create the item again to get the new features.

From: darshan
Date: 2002-04-24 11:29:15
In-Reply-To: 1430

My vote is yes, always upgrade to latest code. Is there any reason not to upgrade old items when their code is changed? To not do so would be unfair to the people who have "old" items.

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-04-15 22:45:30
In-Reply-To: 1430

Both of those options have their advantages and disadvantages.

I say that it might be more practical to have all the items upgraded when code is.

This means that we remove all objects in connection with new code and replace them with new ones, with new code. Yes, this has the cope problem.. but.

This is a simple culminated example: If someone makes an item, a stick, and it has a bug in it: it makes damage far too much - more than a sword. Allright, we upgrade the code and end this. But if the stick survives? Then we have the buggy stick there - still making the damage. Not good.

The latter option, upgrading items as the code is upgraded, has less disadvantages.

From: Rahl
Date: 2002-04-24 19:02:48
In-Reply-To: 1458

I vote yes too for the same reason as darshan there really is no reason not to.

From: raeky
Date: 2002-05-02 21:24:33
In-Reply-To: 1458

new features shouldn't be applyed to existing items.. just my thought. :P

If the code upgrade is for fixing some bug, then YES that needs to be applyed to all versions of the items.

I think it would depend on what the feature or upgrade is if it should apply. I meen if its say a new magical feature of some metal, then it could be just discovered and thus it would apply to everything made of that metal. But if the feature is say a new shape or design of a sword or object, then it shouldn't be upgrade the old items, you'd have to create it again to get the new item shape/design.

Each item change should be decided on by a vote if it should be global or just to new items.

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-05-05 10:12:42
In-Reply-To: 1480

That does sound reasonable to me. If it's a bug, or otherwise ugly item model, we should update all the items.

And if it's just a minor update to textures, let the old models remain.

Yes, we can consider every case individually.

From: Yendor
Date: 2002-05-11 12:52:27
In-Reply-To: 1487

It almost sounds feasible, but then you will face the problem of maintaining the different sources. Also none of the features we add to items will be useless - Everything will count even if it counts only a little. I don't want to see stuff like:

"The fellow around the corner sells some potions of pressurized headache syrup for just XX Coins."
"Cool, but what version are they? 23 or 24?"
"He has mostly 23s but he's also selling some 24s too."
"I hate 23s. They don't stack on my 24s and make up another pile of pots. But I liked the green hallucination effect of 23 more than the red of 24."

Of course it would be 'cool' that you could have that kind of diversity in just one item,

Let's take another example : Two guys, Peter and Jack, both have staff of back scratching. But Peter's newer staff has a neat bronze knob on the end of it. So they have separate code. The developers want to add a feature of scratching someone others' back with the staff, but Jack doesn't want a stupid knob for his staff, he's used the knobless one for weeks and the knob would not only amaze it's user for its crude automatic upgrading and the change of weapon balance - it might even weight more. Jack doesn't want the knob and therefore developers have to maintain two different codes for almost identical items.

From: raeky
Date: 2002-05-19 17:55:16
In-Reply-To: 1489

Well let’s just presume that the guy selling those and creating those is an alchemist. There are many variables in creating a potion, and do to the inaccurate ways of doing things of the time no two mixtures will ever be the same. So for such a thing you wouldn't have a different version, but the effects of the "pills" created in that one batch may differ slightly or greatly from another like batch. Buying medicine or anything from an alchemist should be a risky business, people of the time didn't really take medicine aside from eating plants or drinking a tea made from them. Any mixtures and such from a "alchemist" of the time would carry some risks.

What i would like to see is each alchemist who tries a "recipe" he learned somewhere, ends up doing it a different way and thus gets slightly different effects so in the game you'll see.

"That alchemist in Ronin named Thoras makes the best pressurized headache syrup I’ve ever had!"
"But don't ever buy them from Goga in Nemen! That crap made me ill for weeks."

This can be accomplished by just stacking and random properties to an item as its being created. Say when you ad Ingredient B you have 3 possible outcomes 1 being most likely 75% and the other two 12.5% chance. And a couple attributes that are added for specific processing methods.

Because there would be no EXACTLY one way to create an alchemical potion, and each person may use slightly different equipment or steps, which would be a good way to introduce differences.

As for the second example, the material the item is created from shouldn't be hard coded. A item maker of whatever kind he is should be able to pick what metal one made it from, and even better the metal could have different properties, kind of like alchemical potions metallurgy at the time was very unpredictable and steel from one blacksmith would have quite a bit different properties from another, ranging from very brittle and low malleability to great malleability and VERY strong, it depends on the percent of carbon in the iron. So also with metals one should have variables that can be stacked and randomized by the process and skill of the maker.

If that can be done then there would be a great variability and item makers can gain MUCH fame or MUCH infamy.

As for a unique property that an item has, that should be added and removed as we see fit to “balance” the game, and all items should be subject to it. It would be problematic for players if there great super sword of gore suddenly lost its great ability to poison people attacked with it. Players would be quite upset if they spent a 1000 gold coin on some sword that suddenly was no better then the ones that cost 100.

So if we do REMOVE features on an item it would have to be with great care and caution. But adding a feature would only make players happy if it didn’t ruin the item for them.

Items such as swords wouldn’t carry much inherent features, and unique items that only one can exist in the game could have GREAT powers, but usually wholly out of reach to players, like its owned by a sage or even a more powerful being, or is only found in a very dangerous place that a mortal would not be able to venture without help from an immortal, or great magic.

The average sword someone carries or health potion would be created by another player and its properties would be determined by the skill and process of its creator.

Sorry to ramble on about item creation and item abilities :)

From: Nahl_Shadore
Date: 2002-05-11 23:10:56
In-Reply-To: 1489

for that second example, we already would have updated the code and had to maintain 2 sets for the bronze knob

so updating that to being able to scratch someone else's back would make no difference

I say (like someone else did before) that we'd make it a "staff of back scratching" and "ornamented staff of back scratching", 2 seperate items.

we could, however, link them somehow through grouping (swords, bows, staffs of back scratching) so that if we update an ability like this, it would automatically add the ability to all items of the group "staff of back scratching"
thus both staffs of back scratching would be able to use this ability and would otherwise remain unchanged

hmmm......this gives me an idea......new thread coming up....

From: darshan
Date: 2002-05-19 23:02:04
In-Reply-To: 1512

Indeed, we can't let global item updates affect item properties which vary randomly - eg. stuff caused by the manufacturers' differing abilities. OTOH things like a sword's sharpness (random example) are dictated by a) a global stat for this particular sword type and b) a modifier from the manufacturing process. Here a) must change in a global item update but b) mustn't.

Saith Raeky:
As for the second example, the material the item is created from shouldn't be hard coded. A item maker of whatever kind he is should be able to pick what metal one made it from [...]

This is a fact. I included it in my original item blueprint idea, if you recall: to build item X you need the knowledge of building it, plus the knowledge of working with some material --- ie. the blueprint does not dictate the material.

From: raeky
Date: 2002-05-20 01:58:05
In-Reply-To: 1520

i think if we can successfully implement the whole random variables caused by manufacturing processes and abilities and qualities of materials, would make our game quite a bit different then any other mmorpg out. By doing that there is literally endless possibilities of items, and just cause its a long orcish sword doesn’t mean its like any other, this sword can be made from a very rare mineral and stronger and sharper then anything and can cut through all other metals like butter, or the sword could be made of a poor quality steel and so brittle it would shatter if you dropped it. Ads a very different dynamic aspect to the game play, players would have to assess the quality and materials of an item before buying it.

From: ReSpawner
Date: 2002-05-23 00:28:40
In-Reply-To: 1522

i really like these ideas! but maybe better if some start coding it else it will not be done (very logical). and we should try to get our ideas coded so we se process.

From: Nahl_Shadore
Date: 2002-05-23 04:20:15
In-Reply-To: 1544

umm....currently they're coding more basic things, I believe, that need to be done first. and we have to decide how to do it before we code it into the game