In reply to Nicolas Weeger: > > [...] > > Arguably, all skills that incur no risk should perhaps not contribute > > anything to your overall exp (skills I can think of in this category > > are search, literacy, item identification skills, climbing, etc). I fully agree with this. > That's the hardest point to decide, I think: what is overall experience? > How do you define it in relation with other skills? IMO, overall experience should primarily be a measurement of "overall toughness". In the game code, quite often questions come up like "should the player survive this?", "should the player get hit by this, and how much?". Sometimes you can decide such things based on a specific skill or stat value, but in other cases you really need to have an "overall measurement". Take maximum health points for example. While it may be intuitive to base this on a physical skill, it would be really unfair to those wizard/priest classes to get no good health unless training in a physical skill. Another example would be the chance to get infected by a disease. Again, you could base it on physical, but then the magicians and priests would catch every single disease crossing their way. Hence, the overall experience will often decide over life/death situations. For that reason, it makes sense that only those skills contribute to overall exp which actually play a role in combating, and hold the risk to get killed while leveling up that skill. > For instance: using alchemy incurs some risk, so should > contribute to overall experience. > But reading a scroll (non-spell one) forces you to read, > thus gives some reading experience, which could arguably > contribute to overall experience. Both alchemy and literacy do not incur the risk to die, hence they should not contibute IMO. > Maybe I'm about to propose something bad or hard to implement, > but well... I'd suggest some intermediary levels. > For instance, a level related to physical resistance, which would go up > with fighting (clawing, melee, missile, ...) skills. Hit points would > depend on that particular skill's experience. > Arguably there could be a magic overall level, combining pyromancy, > evoker, ..., and influencing spell points. I also tested the new system, and I can really understand your notion. However, I think the main problem here is the split of the magic skill being problematic. After looking at the division of spells and playing with it, I have doubts wether it was a good idea to split magic in four. Wizards are now required to train several seperate skills in order to have control over all attacktypes (like even fire and cold). This puts them at a real disadvantage compared to fighters and priests, which can have all attacktypes while training only one skill. If wizardry was one single skill, it could have full control over spellpoints, which also would seem more appropriate. It's a similar thing with one- and two-handed weapon skill. What this split will probably cause is that fighter-class players pick only the better one of the two and stick with it. Unless we enforce a global rule like "no one handed weapon is allowed to have attacktype x", I see little reason for the split. Two handed weapons taking up the shield slot seems good enough to me, in resepect for diversity. The idea about intermediary levels isn't bad, but it might be hard to implement and also more complicated. I think it might be easier and more appropriate to just not split magic and melee in the first place. AndreasV -- NEU FÜR ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - für Fotos, Musik, Dateien... Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gruß, GMX FotoService Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More! +++ _______________________________________________ crossfire-devel mailing list crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel