[crossfire] classes & guilds

Lalo Martins lalo.martins at gmail.com
Thu Jul 5 01:41:47 CDT 2007

Also spracht Mark Wedel (Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:29:55 -0700):
> 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.

It's good to have different perspectives.  I'm clearly going as a pen-and-
paper author, shooting for both flavor and game balance.  Juergen is 
coming from some other perspective which I won't try to guess.  And since 
the code needs to get written eventually, of course it's useful to have a 
code perspective ;-)

> 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: ...
> 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?

In fact it's exactly the model you put out.  You'll notice the paragraph 
starts with "In defense of Mark's view" -- last I checked you're the only 
Mark here ;-)

I'm not really proposing a new idea in this paragraph, rather, I'm 
exposing my understanding of the *current* meaning of levels in the 
Crossfire rule system.  Which, IMO, supports your model.  Sure, it could 
be changed; but I see no compelling reason to change, since the desired 
effects can be achieved with your model.

>> That said, I'd put a cap on levels...
> Also reasonable.  Ideally, the caps could be set by skill, so
> for some skills,

I think so, yeah.  Maybe put the values on the actual archetypes.

>> Training to increase proficiency should take time.  A way to represent
>> that could be:
>   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?

Presumably just the "active" one.  Yeah, messy :-(

> 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.

Hmm, I like this idea, from what I remember of the code.  There is 
already some similar logic: dragons record the highest level they ever 
reached, for purposes of atunement "gifts".

>   <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.

Er, but I put the intro before the character goes to the "home town" :-)

> - 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)

Well, this is the kind of thing I'm trying to get rid of :-P

Then again, if you're an experienced player and you know exactly what 
you're doing, getting a "fighter" won't be much slower than it is now, 
except the distance walked will be a little longer.  Ok, I want a human 
knight.  Select Human... select attributes... select Scorn... skip 
intro... walk South to the Royal Order of Chivalry... ignore the NPC that 
could give instructions... ignore the magic mouth that says "step here to 
apply to the Royal Order of Chivalry"... step on the admission mat... 
there, ready to play.  The process was at most twice as long, and it was 
more fun and enticing, IMHO.

> - 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.

In fact, for me, this is the *point* of all the changes above :-)

>> 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?

Yes.  I meant "taught ONLY at a relevant society", but skipped the word.  
Of course you have a good point -- quests for skills would be cool too.

                                               Lalo Martins
      So many of our dreams at first seem impossible,
       then they seem improbable, and then, when we
       summon the will, they soon become inevitable.
personal:                    http://lalo.hystericalraisins.net/
technical:                    http://www.hystericalraisins.net/
GNU: never give up freedom                 http://www.gnu.org/

More information about the crossfire mailing list