[crossfire] Re: New movement code.

[Todd Mitchell]

There isn't any real difference between walls and other blocked tiles 
(like water) currently - everything is either blocked or not blocked. 
This is all part of  the changes Mark is making to the movement code.  
Changing the blocking code has a lot of interesting repercussions.  
That's why it's being discussed. With the changes to movement - existing 
maps cannot be automatically changed since they will break.  However new 
maps and updates to old maps will be better designed if we hash out as 
many of the different movement changes we want to make in advance.  
There has been some interesting ideas - I think it would be good to 
point out that we want to make movement as consistant and understandable 
as possible to avoid players having to experiment with every object on 
the map.  This will mean when you do break the rules it will be effective.

A quick summary of ideas I have:

very high mountains (mountain_5) remains blocked
high mountains (mountain_4) require 'climbing' or 'flying' movement type 
to pass
rivers remain blocked (how to explain this re flying?)
*most* wall types and doors remain blocked
Wasteland remains blocked (or becomes like swamp?) except to flying
shallow sea requires a 'swimming' or 'sailing'  or 'flying' movement type
sea and deep sea require a 'sailing' or 'flying' movement type
new types of jungle and woods require a 'woodlands' or 'flying' movement 
type
flying has limits on range
swimming has a drowning behaviour (like swamp)?
climbing has a falling behaviour (like swamp)?

again these changes are foreward only and existing maps would have to be 
modified to use the new code/arches


Mitch Obrian wrote:

>
     Please do NOT make anyone able to go through walls.
     >
     
     >
     It would be better to remove the wraith player (I
     >
     don't recommend this though) then have a player that
     >
     can move through walls.
     >
     
     >
     Why is this idea being considered? It would make maps
     >
     useless.
     >
     
     >
     Please don't implement this.
     >
     
     >
     
     >