Bernd Edler wrote: > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Mark Wedel wrote: > > > Thus you say : > > 5% constant cha bargain -> more exp NOT ok. > > 10% chance of 50% bargain -> more exp IS ok. > > althogh the experience gained due to charisma is the same in both cases? Yeah, may not make a lot of sense. But probably the bigger issue is that I'd prefer for most skills to not be auto success, but instead have some chance of success/failure - more so for the other benefits, like being able to tune chances more (as per previous message about shop level or not). > > Anyway, this new patch does not grant exp from charisma. > And it does no longer meddle with the player's stats. > One get's 1 exp per silver saved buying, > and 1 exp per gold gained selling. looks good. Only thing I'd likely to do different is something like: flag &= ~F_BARGAIN instead of if (no_bargain) flag = flag - F_BARGAIN; but that is probably really just an issue of style. Perhaps also because depending on the quality of the compiler, my form should be a little faster, but given this function, not a big deal. The expmul issue seems to be solved of cvs. > Although i'd rather change the gained exp, than the level requirements. > If someone wanted to use expmul, he now has to make sure, not to step > over maxint64 for maxlevel. > OTOH, this way,a different expmul is more transparent to the players. Well, if the person is member of a party, can still be obvious. The other adjustment in that case is that all the loss functions need to take into account that difference. Eg, right now, if you chop 20% off, all works out ok. However, if you only give the player 80% (or whatever) of earned exp, and then chop of 20%, I think that hurts harder, so you'd really only want to the death penalty to be 16%. However, the numbers would hve to worked out, but it seems like that would be the case. _______________________________________________ crossfire-devel mailing list crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel