[crossfire] classes & guilds

[Juergen Kahnert]

On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 02:42:05AM +0000, Lalo Martins wrote:
> I could even like it if examining a player reveals her "master"
> skills -- which usually won't be more than a few anyway.

Do you have an idea how it could looks like?  Maybe by clicking on the
character, extending the equipment list.


> So pitching a self-taught amateur that took years to get to level 20
> against a professional who got to this level before "graduating",
> should get an approximately even match.

I don't think so.  Having a master able to teach you the deepest
knowledge (which was gained over generations) is something else than
practicing by your own for years.


> The comparison with an untalented black-belt vs. a talented one is IMO
> not fair.  A better way to think about it is comparing two fighters
> who were given black belts by the same, rigorous master, in which case
> they should have more or less the same skill.

I can't confirm that.  They won't have the same skill.  In fact there
can be huge differences between them, even with the same master teaching
them at (and over) the same time.

It's a matter of fact that there are different natural talents for
skills.


> Then again, maybe by "talented" you actually mean (in game terms) that
> one has better Dexterity or Strength; this would obviously make a
> difference and is unrelated to level.

Nope, even with nearly same physical appearance, they will differ.


> That said, I'd put a cap on levels.  If we retain the current level
> system (110/115), I'd cap amateurs at 40 and professionals at 90.
> (Master is of course uncapped, or capped by the system's own limits,
> currently 110).

I don't think that this will change much.  Check out the characters
running around. Do you think they have much skills over 40?  Fighters
tend to stop training sorcery after reaching town portal.  A level cap
of 40 won't change that...


> It would also be interesting to introduce "difficult" items; for
> example, weapons that require pro level in their skills.

I like that idea.  But didn't you said level 20 should be level 20 no
matter of the version of the skill? ;)

I would simply check the level, not the grade of the skill.


> Despite appearances, it's just not possible to fight with a longsword
> or a battle axe if you've never been trained on it.

That would mean you need a lot of skills.  For every weapon type a new
skill.  And to stay fair, each spell needs to get an own skill level,
too.

I consider that as an overkill.

Just check the level of e.g. one handed weapons and assume that they
owner trained other weapons as well.


> (You can self-train, but you'll probably hurt yourself a lot in
> the process, and it would take ages.)

That's what I try to introduce with capability values of the skills. It
should take long and the best grade should be amateur.


> Training to increase proficiency should take time.  A way to
> represent that could be:
>
> - The system only considers the proficiency for the "instance"
>   of the skill with highest level; so if you're amateur archer
>   20 and pro archer 18, you're still amateur.

I don't get that.  How could you be level 20 and simultaneous level 18
of the same skill?


> - But new experience goes entirely to the higher proficiency.
>
> - Upon acquiring a new version of the skill, it's initialized to
>   the exp corresponding to N levels below the current version,
>   where N might be hardcoded, or might be defined by the object
>   that gave you the skill (the mentor).  For fighting skills I'd
>   say 2 to 5, for magic possibly more.

You lost me on the first point. I can't follow your train of thoughts.



> Character creation
> ==================
>
> Get rid of classes entirely, moving that stage to in-game.

Agreed.


> During creation, you choose species and, let's say, nationality.

The nationality aspect is nice.  Maybe hard to combine with the idea of
having regions of the same level niveau.


> The combination of those defines your starting town and initial
> skills.

I would like to see regions for players of the same level.  You either
need much more of those regions (for every nationalty an own beginning
region) or stay with mixed maps.  But mixed maps lead newbies into
death.  Having a cave of goblins next to one with dragons won't urge
newbies recommending this game to others...


> I'd take that opportunity to "regionalize" the choices of gods.  One
> possibility is that praying at an altar doesn't "convert" you, you
> need be "converted" on that god's society

On the one hand you're saying, that you should be able to master every
skill by your own to the same level as others with a teacher.  On the
other hand you deny that for the praying skill.  I think that's
inconsistent.


> New skills, at amateur level, should be IMO taught at a relevant
> society.

How do you learn magic skills if you're a warrior?  Or are you allowed
to enter all societies?  Or won't you ever get a chance to learn magic
skills as a warrior?


> It also, on a crowded server (which we hope to get if we make CF2 cool
> enough), facilitates characters meeting others of the same society and
> forming parties.  Conversely, if you need one mage for you party of
> fighters, you know where to go; just stand in front of the Academy for
> a while.

Wouldn't it be much easier to use "chat" instead of camping in front of
a guild? ;)

Besides that, I think CF needs much more party support to make this work
well - if ever on a tiled 2D map.  I don't see much parties going deeper
at raffle2 after the trolls are dead.  A CF party is just used to level
up a character fast, nothing more.

    Jürgen