[crossfire] Re: Random ideas. (topic split to resistance caps and interaction with )

[Alex Schultz]

Mark Wedel <
     
     mwedel at ...
     
     > writes:

>
     
     
     >
     
      Alex Schultz wrote:
     
     >
     
      > I have the same issue and I think this would be great, but I'm thinking that
     
     >
     
      > perhaps using a more gradual curve than 1% after normal max would be good.
     
     >
     
      > This change would also be more useful if the cap of 30 for stats even with
     
     >
     
      > equipment was removed, or at least raised.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
        I'm inclined not to raise the cap.  It's basically a never ending max if we 
     
     >
     
      do.  At one point, the maximum for stats was 25.  It was raised to 30 because
     
     >
     
      it was considered too easy to get all the stats up to 25.
     
     
The thing is, that in my opinion, if potions would have a chance to give resists
greater than the normal racial max, then it would be too easy to get to 30, and
even if it gets expontialy more difficult for a potion to have an effect after
the normal racial max, then people will still likely start all getting stats
where just about every one is 30 considering how close to 30 many racial max
values can be already. In that way, players would become too similar to
eachother in stats which in my opinion makes the game boring.  In fact, I've
found that a wraith theif with the good stat rolls can start out with an initial
value of 30 Dex, which makes sense considering what wraiths and theifs can do,
yet in the same way, it makes little sense that they cannot benefit further from
items with good dexterity unlike others. I feel that that issues such as the
wraith example would become much much more common if potions could work (with
limited success) over the racial max and the stat cap was not increased.


>
     
        The problem I see is that if the cap is raised, what do you raise it to?
     
     >
     
      35? 50?  One potential issue with a higher cap is that map makers feel there
     
     >
     
      is less a problem of having items that give bunches of bonuses.  After all, if
     
     >
     
      you say make the cap 50, an item that gives +10 int wouldn't seem all that 
     
     >
     
      outrageous (you'd need 3 of those to get that 50 int).
     
     
I was thinking something in the general area of 35, but yeah, there could
definitally be an issue with the judgement of map-makers if the cap was changed.

>
     
        If the cap is raised, then I'd think it would also make sense to follow the 
     
     >
     
      example of AD&Dv3 and make the stats bonuses linear, and not exponential. 
     
     >
     
      Thus, the advantage of raising the stat is less relevant (if you get an extra
     
     >
     
      +1 dam from that point of strength, not that big a deal).  With the non linear
     
     >
     
      bonuses, right now it is highly desirable to get those last extra points
     
     >
     
      because in terms of dam/sp/grace/whatever, it means a pretty big difference.
     
     Yes, I have noticed that current behavoir perticularly with Con. I agree that if
the cap is increased, it should  *at least* by less exponential if not
completely linear.

Alex Schultz