[crossfire] reorganizing the entire world

[Juergen Kahnert]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 12:39:10AM -0700, Mark Wedel wrote:
> Have to be careful however - if I can start as a fighter, and thus get
> my melee skills up easily, and then switch to wizardry and get my
> spell casting skills up easily, classes once again loose some meaning.

Indeed, that's why I would prefer strict classes with all their
advantages and disadvantages.

Offering the possibility to change the class guild will keep the CF
classless style more than restrict them to one class guild.


> some of the point about a revamp was that classes would have real
> distinction, and that distinction last the entire lifetime of that
> character

More the classic role playing style.


> (some of it may be in form of level caps - if you're a fighter,
> fighting type skills have no cap, but spellcasting skills have a cap
> at level 50 or something).

I don't like the idea of having such a maximum level. I don't even like
the maximum level of 115 (which doesn't mean that I ever reached it).
Just make it harder to gain xp in skills not related to the class.


> A lot of what different classes mean, and effects, would still need to
> be sorted out.  But it would probably be bad for players to be able to
> switch classes at some point.

I agree with that.


> However, even if it is redone, I could still see a 6-8 different
> classes.  Lets take the main spellcasting ones - sorcery, evocation,
> pyromancy, summoning.

That's funny, I'd made a "mage" class out of those four classes. Anyway,
it depends on how the classes should look like.


There are different styles possible:

1. Hard restrictions of the classes, fighter unable to use magic, mages
   unable to use heavy armour / weapons, ...

   This is nice and preferred for team based games. But CF is not and
   parties are only used to level up a character fast. That could be
   changed by such limitations.

2. Totally open, everybody is able to learn everything. That's what CF
   almost implemented with very few exceptions.

   Players will play for their own most of the time.

3. Combination out of those both.

   a) Hard level limits on non class skills. For example, a fighter is
      only able to learn magic skills up to level n.

   b) Skill capabilities, some skills are learnt easier than others.
      This could be given by a class or by free choice of the player
      depending on the character generation.

   c) Dynamic skill adjustment, those skills you're using are learnt
      easier, unused harder, maybe even unlearnt.


We already use style 2 and want to change it. I would say that style 1
is a bit to hard for the core players of CF. This will change the entire
gameplay and players. I wouldn't make this experiment with CF.

Style 3a is fanciless. The worst option of style 3 from my point of
view. I would prefer 3c, but this is more coding work and harder to
balance than 3b, so 3b looks like a good choice.

But 3c will also work for new skills, which are added after the player
created the character. So 3c could also be worth to implement it.


> That said, prohibiting some classes/combos from guilds is OK.

Yes, same for me.


> But this can also get tricky - there are perhaps way players can try
> and get around things like this (player friend in a guild uses town
> portal so other characters can bypass the entrance checks, etc)

Maybe, depends on the situation. For example the Navar - Undead
situation could be solved by guards hunting the undead player if
bypassed the entrance checks.

I think we should try it. If checks are bypassed there will be ways to
add some more checks or let the player exploit it. Again, this will
depend on the situation.


> Just to throw more complexity in the mix, in the suggestions about
> redoing skills/classes, it has been suggested that for advanced
> players, they basically be able to make their own class (choose what
> skills they want, stat adjustments, etc - there would of course be
> certain limits and checks, as some skills are more valuable then
> others).  But how do you handle those cases where a character doesn't
> have any predefined class?

The character generation could look like this for everybody, not only
for experienced players.  Just offer some predefined classes for the
newbies with characteristic class settings.  This may be tuned or not,
whatever the player likes.

The rest will be done by the guild the player likes to join.


> This is another reason why I'm suggesting that specific classes
> shouldn't be what counts, but rather the characters skills,
> proficiency in those skills, and perhaps difference in levels.

Yes, I think this style will better fit for CF than the classic class
based style.


> For example, a character with level 50 in evocation and level 5 in 1
> handed weapons (that being his best fighter type skill) could get
> rejected from the fighters guild with something like "you've already
> decided your path in life is a wizard, and the fighters won't let you
> join".
>
> but if a character has level 5 evocation and level 5 1 handed weapons,
> then they should probably let him join.  Now it may be that membership
> is reviewed, so if he then goes off and becomes a pure wizard, at some
> point the fighters reject him, saying they haven't met his ideals,
> etc.

Sounds reasonable, we just need to define the guild rules and what the
player likes to do with it, is his / her choice.  If there are ways to
become a member of more than one class guild, fine, but this should be
an exception and not the regular case.


> I certainly don't mind some guild masters handing out some quests.
> I'm just not sure they should be handing out all the quests.

Neither I do.  The key quests for the class, yes, but definitely not all
quests.  Also not in a row.  I mean, the guild master will check your
level and if you reached a certain level, he offers you the next quest.


> And some quests/maps could be used for different guilds.  For example,
> there could be animosity between the cleric and wizards guild.  The
> cleric guild wants an item retrieved because it is powerful relic that
> is useful in their religion.  The wizard guild wants it retrieved so
> the cleric can't get it.

I like this idea; could be real fun. :)

Maybe offers even the chance for a guild war. >;-)


> I'd saying fixing the NPC conversation is one of those things to do.
> There are lots of ways it could be made better (the current way really
> does leave a lot to be desired).

Long time ago, I was new to CF, I tried to get quests from NPCs.  I
talked to every(!) NPC I found on the maps.  That was a really humbling
experience.

Maybe all NPCs should share some basic knowledge about the world.  And
offering you directly some keywords you could use to get the specific
part instead of the general world database.


> I'd really like it so that talking to NPC's would be rewarding and
> something players want to do.

Yes, I would like to see that, too. ;)


Re: Map Visiting

> Me personally, I'd get the feeling that if I'm finding clues to all
> the different maps that I'm really being led by the nose - I'd much
> rather go out and find some of those things on my own (or by talking
> to npcs, whatever) than just being pointed at everything.

Don't make the notes so obvious like: You have to go to Darcap, enter
the second house on the east to start a new quest.

For example you could find a diary which says: "I regret that I didn't
asked the crazy old man in the pub in Darcap where to find the treasure
he was talking about."

Something like that. It's up to you if you like to visit Darcap and talk
to the crazy old man or not.  Maybe he will drivel about another dude in
the pub who knows about another quest.  You'll never know if you don't
talk to him, right? ;)


> 1) Include information about various maps (side quests as you put it,
> but I'd not really call them quests) in random messages, and have
> those show up more in treasure.  So you go into a dungeon, and may
> find a scroll that talks about goblins near town.  Another time you do
> that dungeon, may not find that, but find info about some other
> dungeon, etc.  And you could of course get some duplicate information
> on this (may find information about those goblins in several different
> maps/locations).  This isn't that hard - basically need some way to
> more easily gather the data, and increase the frequency of it showing
> up.  Ideally it should be tied by region, so scorn area would contain
> information about other scorn maps, etc.

Most of those informations should belong to the region the player found
it.  In some rare cases there could be also a hint about another region,
but really seldom.

Also a ingame player "diary" would help.  Anything you ever read in
dungeons will be written and sorted into the personal diary.  Notes
belonging to each other should be stored on the same page of the diary.
This will allow you to make smaller notes which only makes sense if you
have them all.


> 2) Improve NPC conversation so it is worth it to talk to them.

I would appreciate that.


> 3) Like point #1 for scrolls in maps, also extend it to NPCs.   So the
> various NPCs in scorn could also talk about the goblins around the
> area, and perhaps other things.

Yes, similar to my idea of giving every NPC knowledge about the world.
Give them extra knowledge about the region, and this will be perfect.

    Jürgen