The current concept calls for two different types of maps. In town maps there is no HUD and you can't use any weapons, spells or inventory items, but you can talk to NPCs, buy/sell items etc. In dungeon maps, everything that moves is hostile and your only task is to survive and kill as much as you can and pick up items that either make you stronger or can be sold in a town. You have a HUD and can use all weapons and spells, but there is no NPC interaction possible (since NPC interaction stops the game, it takes away from the frantic fighting - it is worth evaluating whether some other features like the update screen should be disabled in dungeons as well). Questions: 1) Do you feel this kind of distinction is good or pointless? 2) Would you prefer a different distinction, where the restrictions for town maps still apply but in dungeon maps there could also be NPCs? 3) Would you prefer a larger variety of map types with more subtle distinctions? E.g. peaceful cities with no fight and no enemies, border towns with NPC interaction but also HUD and some monsters, wilderness and dungeon maps with NPCs and maybe even shops in them, etc. 4) Technically, how difficult or easy would be doing this? 5) Any other feedback?

[quote="RambOrc":1dfvulky]1) Do you feel this kind of distinction is good or pointless? I think that for the type of mod we are trying to make, this distinction is good for it. [quote="RambOrc":1dfvulky]2) Would you prefer a different distinction, where the restrictions for town maps still apply but in dungeon maps there could also be NPCs? However, I do think that it should be slightly different. I think a couple NPCs here and there would be good in dungeons... But obviously not many NPCs. [quote="RambOrc":1dfvulky]3) Would you prefer a larger variety of map types with more subtle distinctions? E.g. peaceful cities with no fight and no enemies, border towns with NPC interaction but also HUD and some monsters, wilderness and dungeon maps with NPCs and maybe even shops in them, etc. A larger variety would probably be a good idea too. But, IMO, that mostly depends on how difficult it will be to create, from a technical standpoint. [quote="RambOrc":1dfvulky]5) Any other feedback? ... I bet half the stuff I just said contradicts the next answer <!-- s:P --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/orc4.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz" /><!-- s:P --> So to sum it up, I think having a distinction is good, but have more of a variety in it. Having additional types of towns would be a good idea. Perhaps like: 'Towns' Where you don't have a hud, you don't have to fight anything. 'Villages' are less well defended and overall 'lower-tech', so there are some monsters here and there. And so on and so on.

[quote="RambOrc":3mrtpxo7]1) Do you feel this kind of distinction is good or pointless? I think it's useful, but not completely right, I would go as Stryker said, adding some NPCs for some dungeons (or special areas of maps), we could make it easier if when designing the maps, we avoid direct contact of enemies and NPCs, to avoid things like that you have to speak to a certain NPC to get something important and said NPC is killed by monsters <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/orc2.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->. But this is merely mapping work IMO. [quote="RambOrc":3mrtpxo7]2) Would you prefer a different distinction, where the restrictions for town maps still apply but in dungeon maps there could also be NPCs? See my first answer, I think it's clear enough <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/orc2.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->. [quote="RambOrc":3mrtpxo7]3) Would you prefer a larger variety of map types with more subtle distinctions? E.g. peaceful cities with no fight and no enemies, border towns with NPC interaction but also HUD and some monsters, wilderness and dungeon maps with NPCs and maybe even shops in them, etc. That would come interesting IMO, we could spice things up doing this, but we would need to properly define what will be possible and what won't be. [quote="RambOrc":3mrtpxo7]4) Technically, how difficult or easy would be doing this? Removing the HUD and weapons could be done via ACS scripts if implemented correctly, it's not too difficult to do (we already do it on KA for taking screenshots, so it could be just copy paste work on the code <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/orc9.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->), as for limiting the player to attack in towns, it can be done too with small additions. Again, we'll need to define what situations are possible, so we can add them properly to the code and use them in any cases when it's necessary. [quote="RambOrc":3mrtpxo7]5) Any other feedback? I'm thinking that we could define map 'types' so that depending the type of map we could tell the game to enable/disable certain things for the players and/or enemies/NPCs (using flags).

I vote for 3rd proposal, I suppose it would be nice to have towns or villages overrun by monsters and guards/militia fighting them, and also NPCs in dungeons/wilderness that should be "saved" due some side-quest for instance. Also cities could be divided into parts, like peaceful part and dangerous part. Not sure about shops in dungeons though, sounds a bit weird. We should discuss NPC behavior in the presence of monsters: should they run, fight etc, or just stand still like nothing happens; should monsters attack them or not? About technique... Status bar could be hidden simply; weapon sprite is different, in KA I used something like temporary hack, which causes glitches sometimes. Perhaps there could be other ways to do this, like creating a dummy "weapon" that do not attack, cannot be changed and has invisible sprite(s). Toggling "peaceful" mode on/off could be done easily by implementing new ACS commands as Firebrand mentioned.

I also vote for the 3rd option, for story proposes it's the better one, I also would like to see NPC's help you defeat monsters, or following you through a level to save them, things like that. It could be a flag that activates in certain parts of a map. I also consider a good idea that certain NPC's act differently in certain circumstances (like running away from monsters, or stan still, etc.), and how are monsters going to act around the NPC's.

There is another question. Why is that whole HUD should be hidden? Might be player wants to know how much health he has and don't he has to heal himself or something. Also, should "peaceful" territories guarantee that player cannot be damaged in any way, like falling from big height or slammed by moving polyobject?

[quote="Crimson Wizard":3frhq7ys]There is another question. Why is that whole HUD should be hidden? Might be player wants to know how much health he has and don't he has to heal himself or something. I agree with this part, the HUD should not completely hidden. Maybe just stripped down to show the basics (Health/Armor/Gold). [quote="Crimson Wizard":3frhq7ys]Also, should "peaceful" territories guarantee that player cannot be damaged in any way, like falling from big height or slammed by moving polyobject? No. If possible I guess just do it so he won't get damaged from a moving polyobj... But if the player is stupid enough to get into a height situation in a city, then meh. (Which situations like that are usually only possible by jumping of the rooftops)

[quote="Stryker":1qar7zxe] No. If possible I guess just do it so he won't get damaged from a moving polyobj... But if the player is stupid enough to get into a height situation in a city, then meh. (Which situations like that are usually only possible by jumping of the rooftops) Well, we may toggle invulnerability mode on for peaceful territory.