[crossfire] Progressive exp table and removal of a bad hack: death_penalty_levels

[Mark Wedel]

Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:27:20 -0700, Mark Wedel <mwedel at sonic.net> wrote:
>> Raphaël Quinet wrote:
>>> But again, that would be the wrong way to limit the number of levels
>>> lost: if a server admin does not want players to lose more than 1
>>> level per death, then the admin should modify the exp curve or lower
>>> the death_penalty_percentage.
>>   But it seems like you are deciding server policy for server admins, who may 
>> not agree with that policy.
>>
>>   I agree with Alex here - keeping that option around doesn't do any harm - it 
>> can be set to a high value such that it effectively does nothing.  But if a 
>> server admin does want to set it, who are we really to say that you can't?
> 
> I don't want to prevent server admins from limiting the number of
> levels that are lost when a player dies.  I just want to be sure that
> it is done in the right way.  In other words, I don't want to decide
> server policy, I just want to have a better way to implement that
> policy.

  I agree that the exp table should be updated, and other changes should be made.

  I just don't see a really compelling reason for the death level loss limit to 
go away - it is currently in the code, and currently works fine.  Sure, using it 
may mask broken behaviour elsewhere, and different/better tables should be used.

  But there are potentially many options within the settings file which change 
balance or could cause breakage - maybe some should be removed, maybe not.  But 
the point is that we provide the option for server admins to use them.

  I suppose some of this is depend on what release this is target at.  If 2.0, 
less an issue.

  However, if it is targetted at the 1.9 cycle, then I really think this option 
must remain - I'd expect most servers are not going to change the exp table mid 
stride, and at the same time, don't want to change the death loss mid stride 
either - after all, its not really fair for newer players to play with different 
rules than the older players.


> 
> Side note: encouraging a more careful playing style would also require
> updating some maps.  Several areas can trap the player without warning
> (especially some "no spells" areas as I mentioned a few weeks ago) or
> they contain some warnings but do not mention how hard the area will
> be and do not indicate that there is no way back (e.g., lake country's
> burial ground or dark angel Hanuk).  Even a careful player will
> probably want to explore a bit and will eventually fall into one of
> these traps and die.  The warnings for these areas should be a bit
> more explicit.

  I agree on those points - places that trap the player are generally poor design.

  And the difficulty of some places is another issue.  Now some of this could 
perhaps be helped out if the game play is slower - if it takes 10 seconds to be 
killed by a monster, that is still enough time to cast word of recall and get 
out.  The problem is some places, death is in a matter of seconds, which isn't 
enough time.