Peter Mardahl wrote: > In the past, I've argued against "guilds", because I didn't want > the code so intertwined with the mapset: i.e., you have to have > the monk guild map present in the set or monks won't be fully implemented. I agree to some extent. It also creates a problem that either you need multiple guilds, or need to wander to wherever the guild is located to get your abilities, which could also be annoying. > > However, I like this idea better than special-case code in the server > itself. We can enhance the "player changer" to grant slightly better > monk-skills every level by operating on a hypothetical monk's player force. The other problem is that if its in the code, you starting having to put many checks whenever the player gains a level. Something that happens on player action is probably more efficient in that regard also. > > We could similarly have a "molting center" for the Quetzalcoatl, and > a "rekindler" for the fireborn. Perhaps these places could ask questions > or set quests for access to the upgrades. True - I know someone was commenting about special quest maps for certain classes or gods - it could work in this also - return item XXXX from the map and you get promoted to super monk or the like and gain the ability. I would still like to have some level check, simply so someone can't give you that special item (being it may not be useful for them if they're not that class) to prevent low level people from getting too powerful. > > I'm not willing to do the maps, but I'll hack the new abilities > into the player changer. Depending how this is done, the maps could be pretty simple (same complexity as say the temples), but if you tie that to quests, then it gets more complicated as quests either need to be updated or created.