[crossfire] classes & guilds

[Mark Wedel]

  Just a note - I go into pretty much all discussions with some thought on the 
code involved.  Maybe people don't think that is quite the right approach.  But 
my thought is that the greatest designed system in the world is meaningless if 
it is too complicated to code in a timely fashion.


Lalo Martins wrote:
>
> In defense of Mark's view of how it works (levels are effective
> the same way, but need more exp), I'd like to say: Crossfire
> levels are not a function of experience.  They are just that: a
> measure of how effective a skill is due to experience.  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.

  Fine by me.  It sounds like from that description, amateurs gain exp more 
slowly than professionals, but if both are level 10 in the same skill, they are 
effectively equivalent?  This sounds like one of the models I put out - in this 
case, the skill names just make it easier to know what skill version you have?


> 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).

  Also reasonable.  Ideally, the caps could be set by skill, so for some skills, 
maybe amateur cap is 30, for others, amateur cap is 50. Either way, that isn't 
hard to do.

> 
> It would also be interesting to introduce "difficult" items; for
> example, weapons that require pro level in their skills.
> Despite appearances, it's just not possible to fight with a
> longsword or a battle axe if you've never been trained on it.
> (You can self-train, but you'll probably hurt yourself a lot in
> the process, and it would take ages.)

  It has been suggested that there be class or racial items (something only a 
dwarf can wear, or a ring only a mage can put on). But with all these 
discussions, class based items are a bit meaningless, so skill level items makes 
more sense.  Question then is - do we care what version of the skill the person 
has?  Eg, is it sorcery level 20 (amateur, professional, or master), or master 
sorcery level 20 only?  That could make a big difference.

> 
> 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.
> 
> - 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.
> 
> So the time required to train yourself into a pro is represented
> by the experience required to "catch up" to you previous level.

  This gets a bit messier to code, as now you have multiple versions of 
effectively the same skill.  If I do the skills command (or just the output in 
the client), does it now show two different archery skills?

  Making such a change is quite a bit more widespread in the code, since each 
skill is differentiated by a subtype number - things would have to get changed 
to resolve to basically different subtypes (3 subtypes for each skill). 
Experience also gets a little trickier.

  It'd be a lot easier to just convert (or add/remove) the amateur and replace 
it with the professional version.  The problem of course is now you are lower 
skill level, so may not be able to cast some spells, weapon to hit could go 
down, hp go down, etc, which would seem odd.

  I wonder if instead, it could be recorded something like 'player was level 20 
in this skill before it got updated', and things look at that for min casting 
level, etc.  I'd have to think about if that is easier to do than multiple skills.

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

  <Much about character creation removed>

  Interesting ideas, but my quick thoughts/notes:

- Alex recently started another topic about redoing the intro/low level area.  I 
thinking having 1 intro area is much better than 5-6 different intro areas.

- While maybe not everyone would use it, I would guess some people would want an 
expedited creation method (I just want to player a fighter - I don't want to 
wander around a village for for 10 minutes talking to folks to get the skills I 
need)

- I might put this as a part of phase 2 - I don't see that this is actually a 
requirement related to any of the changes above.  It would seem to be a lot of 
work, and I'm not sure I'd put it at the same priority as redoing the 
skills/classes/races themselves.


> Learning new skills
> ===================
> 
> New skills, at amateur level, should be IMO taught at a relevant
> society.  The Royal Order of Chivalry can teach you amateur
> archery and smithery, and the Arcane Academy of Scorn has
> alchemy and one spell type it doesn't teach at pro.  For a
> price, of course; probably very high.

  Or maybe even a quest (bring me a ....).  But yes, that seems reasonable.  You 
don't say so, but I take it that skillscrolls then disappear from the game?

> 
> Advancing
> =========
> 
> Then at other places in the world, preferably far from the
> starting towns, you get other societies that teach you more.
> I'd even be happy to partially reuse existing maps.  To get pro
> alchemy, you go to the Nurnberg Alchemy Society (existing map,
> but unfinished); to join, you're required to have amateur level
> alchemy, which is only learnable in magic academies, so fighters
> are barred.  The Tower of Demonology could reasonably have a new
> section added, where someone who has amateur summoning can learn
> it up to pro.
> 
> These further societies are still societies in all senses,
> including recurring costs if you want to go back there (and we
> should think up some perks to encourage that).

  That all seems fine.