[crossfire] classes & guilds

[Lalo Martins]

Also spracht Juergen Kahnert (Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:16:11 +0200):
> 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.

Yes, that's what I thought.

>> 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.

This is represented by the caps.  "The deepest knowledge" is the highest 
levels.

Also, you're missing a point.  Read the preceding part again. "Crossfire 
levels are not a function of experience.  They are just that: a measure 
of how effective a skill is due to experience."  Levels are a measure of 
effectiveness; that's what they mean, at least in this game.  So two 
people of level 20 have the same ability, because that's what level 20 
means; if one of them had less, then he wouldn't have level 20.

>> 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.

Then I'm sorry, we seem to have a fundamental difference of philosophy 
wrt. the real life.  I don't believe in that.

Bear in mind, I'm not talking about two people training for the same 
time.  I'm talking about two people being awarded the same degree by the 
same (rigorous) master.  The person who's talented will get there 
faster.  The not-very-talented will take a long time.  The untalented 
will never get there.  I've seen it happen myself many times on martial 
arts schools.

>> 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...

Er, do you really play on the servers?  I routinely see people with 
skills of levels above 100, because that's the only way you can level up 
at that point.

Besides, it still does make a huge difference for things like weapon 
skills.

Finally, there has been talk of redistributing spell levels, and I'm 
taking for granted that this *will* be done for 2.0.  The current spell 
levels are artifacts from when the highest level was, I don't remember 
exactly, 40 or 50.

>> 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.

You got me there :-)  But what I meant to represent here is that someone 
who had formal training is likely to have more breadth than the self-
taught.  The examples I use below -- longsword and battle axe -- are 
really though, and it's unlikely someone will ever bother to spend the 
time to learn them, if they have to actually live their lives as an 
active adventurer.  Other weapons go beyond that into the barroque: I 
think someone would have to be really incredibly skilled already before 
they could self-teach a kusari, for example, without dying in the process.

>> 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.

Oh no, sorry, I'm not proposing different skills.  I'm just saying, an 
untrained person will use the tools (weapons in this case) that are 
easier to grasp, while someone with formal training will have more 
breadth.


>> 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?