[crossfire] classes & guilds

[Juergen Kahnert]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 09:53:13PM -0700, Mark Wedel wrote:
> I am not adverse to all races/classes starting with all skills (save
> those intrinsic ones like Nicolas mentions), but with a fair number
> being really poor versions.

Sure, I don't want to see flying dwarfs doing flame touchs, either. ;-)


> 1) skills operate the same, just harder to get levels in ones you are
> not good at.

This will end up with all characters having the same skill level, just
takes longer to get some of them.


> 2) Skills operate different.  A person with the good version of
> evocation at level 10 casts spells much more effectively than a person
> with crappy evocation at level 10.  I'd think that in this model, the
> exp gain should be the same - that is to say that the crappy version
> needs the same exp total as the good version to get to level 10.

Could be made, it's a bit easier to implement.


> The difference here is that it becomes harder with the bad version,
> because the spells don't do as much damage, so you need more of them,
> etc.  I say that level gain should be the same, or close, as otherwise
> you are really punishing those with poor versions of the skills

Sure, it's intended to be a punishment.  Stay with your class if you
like the easy way. ;)


> - not only is the skill not as effective, but you need more exp.  You
> can of course do that, but then at some point, it is almost what is
> the point of offering such skills in the first place.

Having the skill from the very first beginning just means, that they're
able to gain xp in them.  This offers the possibilty to eventually
master them - after long and hard working on them.

This doesn't mean that you have to train them, it's just the natural
ability of an intelligent being to learn something new. ;)


> Note also that in many cases, point #2 really looks like point #1.

I don't think so.


> so effectively this just means that the bad version of level 10 is the
> same as the good version at level 3.  So you don't really gain much in
> this case, except for guilds that look at minimum level (but then the
> question comes up, should they also take the version of the skill into
> account?

No, definitely just the level, because the "affinity value" of the level
will become better through the guidance of the guild masters.

The level is only checked to proof that you life the guild rules.


> At some level, it almost seems that a bunch of complexity is being
> added, and internal at some level, everything is getting adjusted
> skill level, and using method #1 in that case is a lot easier.

Method #1 won't give you the chance of fine tuning the classes.  They
will become the same sooner or later, but not with method #2.


> The original point of redoing skills/classes was the general complaint
> that at higher levels, all classes look alike,

Not only higher levels.  This equality is reached pretty fast.


> becuase all classes/races have the same skills at high levels.  From
> some of the discussions here, I'm not sure if everyone actually thinks
> that is an issue,

It is an issue for sure.  If the high level human warrior decides to
learn magic and will even outclass the fireborn sorcerer, because the
human warrior is also able to wear rings and amulets AND magical armour
to become a much more powerfull mage then the fireborn, than the system
is extremely unbalanced.

What's the point of playing a magical creature like fireborn, if every
barbarian is able to get the power up with items to the same value (30)
of a fireborn?  Out of the fireborn description:

    Their insubstantial nature makes them both
    very weak and very quick.  Their minds are
    agile, and they are able to commune well with
    the gods. However, their area of excellence
    is magic. They spellcast more powerfully than
    any other race, and mana flows into them
    readily. They can even cast cold spells with
    devastating effectiveness.  They all know a
    basic fire spell.

I can't confirm that.  Fireborns are probably the weakest mages of all.


> and instead of fixing the classes/skills, the idea is to enforce/add
> differentation by guilds and special perks.

Both will do the job.


> In that case, this could be the easiest:
>
> 3) There is no classes - every starts with same version of all the
> skills, and what they become is based on what skills they use.  A
> person using magic would be in the mages guild, a person using melee
> skills in the fighter, etc.

So far it's fine.


> This becomes a pure case of you are what you practice.  Characters may
> look the same at higher level, OTOH, if the guilds do offer special
> benefits, maybe not.

The guilds have to play a central role of the concept, or it ends up the
same.


> This doesn't require any code changes - the real change that would be
> needed is some new way for characters to get starting equipment (as
> that is one of the big differences between classes right now - mages
> start with spellbooks, fighters with arms and armor).

I don't think that this will change anything.

I'll explain my idea (with the modifications out of the discussion) in
detail in an extra mail.  Hopyfully this will give the big picture.

    Jürgen