[CF-Devel] Re: Sorry

[Peter Mardahl]

>
     
      > But we should think of some issues before doing reductions:
     
     >
     
      > are we seriously screwing fighter chars by doing these reductions?
     
     >
     
      > Remember, these characters are going up against high-level demons,
     
     >
     
      > undead, and things like Jessies.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       However, mages can also use cloaks, gloves,  and boots without any real
     
     >
     
      problem, so it really helps both classes.
     
     
True, but the AC only helps them when they're acting like fighters,
in a fighter capacity.

>
     
       If you want to help fighters and not mages, I think you really need to beef 
     
     >
     
      shields and armors - things that cause significant spell point regen penaltie
     
     >
     
      and spell fumbling chances.
     
     
Well, I honestly would like to see enchant-armour not add ac to
boot, glove, cloak.  I think that would do nicely.

I've been doing some playing in a fighter recently, though, and I
don't think it's too much of a problem as it is now.  I.e.,
we should think about it, but it's not the top of our list of
worries.

>
     
      > I understand your point on levels,
     
     >
     
      >  and I don't really have strong arguments against the cap.  However,
     
     >
     
      > I don't have a problem with a non-existence of maps for players > level 100
     
     >
     
      > Just because we allow the possibility doesn't mean we have to realize it.
     
     >
     
      > I can't think of anything I would do with a level 200 character, nor
     
     >
     
      > do I have any ideas on maps for such a char.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       But you will get some user base saying 'hey - I'm level 150 and there is
     
     >
     
      nothing to do in the game?  Whats up?'.  And if there is no point to those
     
     >
     
      higher levels, why allow it?
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       If you want to make things interesting, cap the level and instead have some
     
     >
     
      very tough dungeons - tough enough that the player needs the right items and 
     
     >
     
      them properly.  With removal of immunity potions, this is a much more real
     
     >
     
      possiblity.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       I've also made this point before - if there is no limit on levels, people wi
     
     >
     
      start making level 150 or 500 or whatever level maps.  I would much rather ma
     
     >
     
      creation be concentrated in a more narrow range.
     
     
All of these points make sense:  like I said, I have no strong
arguments against your points.  I'm just stating my opinion with no
expectation of changing your mind or persuading anyone or forcing a change
in the current policy.  My personal reaction would be to not bother
making maps for super-high-level people, and not bother playing a 
super-high-level char, but rather start new chars.  "Hmm, time to
try a troll-fighter.  OK, now an elf-wizard.  Hmm, a gnome-priest?
How about a human-wizard following Gnarg?"

>
     
       But my point is more, than using flags allow for greater flexibility.  Sure,
     
     >
     
      you don't want the character to be wielding two artifact weapons, but do we
     
     >
     
      really want to prevent a dragonslayer and say a dagger +1?  In terms of balan
     
     
A dagger +1 obviously isn't offensive.  However, a taifu +1 very probably
is.  I think setting level for taifu's, all archetype artifacts, all
random artifacts, and certain map artifacts, and allowing only one
"levelled" weapon is a sensible rule.

However, I still am concerned about it a bit:  what about a level
8 char:  why would he use a shield instead of a second +4 long sword?
He'd lose 3 ac, (shield +2), a loss of about 30%, 
but double his combat strength.  It's
not as bad if the second weapon is +0 and totally mundane.

Even a dragonshield adds only 3ac, and a bit of armour:  arguably
well worth trading away for 2x damage if you don't need the fire
protection.

>
     
      > IMHO monster's level should be removed from the formula for calculating
     
     >
     
      > experience gains.  Right now it's difficult to see how much experience
     
     >
     
      > a monster actually gives.  A few high level monsters make it very easy
     
     >
     
      > for players to get to high levels, even though they have the same "exp"
     
     >
     
      > value as other low level monsters that are not so much easier to kill.
     
     >
     
      > This would make the level limit difficult to reach.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
       I thought the simple exp system does this, but I then notice that
     
     >
     
      calc_skill_exp does not use this, and it appears that is used when killing
     
     >
     
      another creature.
     
     
Actually, i like the level-difference-matters system on awarding
experience.  We could conceivably remove the "cap" on player level and
experience and let the level-exp-diff system put a natural cap on it
for us.

I think the real problem here is that experience awards for various
monsters is just off, as are their levels.

>
     
       That is easy enough to change - should that also be changed for more than ju
     
     >
     
      combat?  I sort of think perhaps it should - I know a low level character luc
     
     >
     
      enough to disarm a difficult trap can gets tons of experience.
     
     
I think a difficult trap disarm is a feature rather than a bug.
My characters typically lag agility levels far behind all the rest.
(Until they get stealing).
Let's not make it harder to advance in agility.

PeterM