> 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. So hp depends on physical & magical level, but overall experience accounts for literacy & meditation :) I agree on the unfairness for wiz/pri, would be too nasty... > Both alchemy and literacy do not incur the risk to die, > hence they should not contibute IMO. Err, alchemy IS dangerous :) Take a level 5 char, put 10+ ingredients in a cauldron, use the alchemy skill, you'll be lucky to not die imo ^_^ (mana blast, fire, bomb, monsters, ...) > 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. <snip> > 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. Hum I don't mind splitting really different magic skills. After all summoning elementals or using burning hands are not really the same thing. OTOH, icestorm & burning hands do look the same, except one is fire and the other is ice.. Splitting skills though makes the game more 'realistic'. Even if I'm a champion at one hand weapons, I don't know anything about using a bow... Or punching :) > AndreasV Nicolas 'Ryo' _______________________________________________ crossfire-devel mailing list crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel