[crossfire] classes & guilds, was Re: class guild map

[Mark Wedel]

Juergen Kahnert wrote:

>> In particular, the skills do have self contained information about how
>> much exp ones gets for the skill.  So it is just a matter of creating
>> some new archetypes with different values (basic/expert/master skills?
> 
> Doesn't show the level itself the knowledge about a skill? Is having a
> "master level 1" better than "basic level 50"?

  No.  If you are master level 10, and basic level 10, the skill operates the same.

  The difference is that it may take a character 4 times as much exp to get to 
basic level 10 as it takes a character to get to master level 10.

  I'd have to look at the skill code more closely to see if it checks by name 
for skill matching, but it could be very easy to have the skill names themselves 
be things like 'Basic 1 handed weapons', 'Intermediate 1 handed weapons' and 
'Advanced 1 handed weapons'.

  Still not really happy with those names either, since they suggest more how 
good the character is in those, not how fast one advances.

  One nice thing about having basic level 10 = intermediate level 10, in terms 
of capabilities, is that it then makes it very easy to upgrade a skill from 
basic to intermediate - all that needs to be done is adjust how exp is gained.

  In comparison, if basic level 10 = intermediate level 2, it gets much messier 
- you would almost need a case by case basis to determine exactly how things get 
translated for each skill.  And for some things, they are driven by overall 
level (like mana points), so a reduction of level 10 to level 2, even if a 
'better' skill would result in the character having fewer mana points, etc. 
Also dealing with spell learning, etc, gets a lot more complicated.

  Reducing the exp gain is a very easy way to add some difference to the 
classes/skills.  Level caps would be another way (I know that this may not be 
liked, but if you instead say 'this class just doesn't get a skill', that is 
basically the same as a level cap of 0).  In some cases, you pretty much need to 
let all the classes have some skills (like ability to pick up a weapon and swing 
it), but I personally don't have a problem limiting how good a mage can get 
doing that.

> 
> 
>> But maybe a better name, as that suggests more how good you are in the
>> skill, not how well you learn it - something like attuned/normal/repelled
>> is almost better, but would be confusing with spells).  But whatever -
>> one could easily make up instances of the existing skills that have a
>> difference in the exp gain rate.
> 
> What about a second value for skills. This could be called "disposition"
> or "affinity" or something like this. It would be a float value which is
> used to divide the xp gained by this skill.
> 
> So having an "affinity" level of 2 means, you will get 50 xp out of a
> 100 xp monster. Having 0.5 "affinity" will give you 200 xp for the same
> monster.
> 
> This "affinity" value could be changed with skill scrolls. You start
> with an affinity value of 4 or 5 (or whatever) and each scroll you read
> will reduce this value by 0.04 x affinity value.
> 
> Make the bonus / malus symetric. If you start with an "affinity" value
> of 5, the lowest value will be 0.20.
> 
> The class skills will start with lower values and maybe each level
> advance will reduce it automatically without skill scrolls (because of
> the master in the guild teaching the skills - as long as you manage to
> stay in the class guild).
> 
> Every skill level you're able to read one skill scroll to decrease the
> "affinity" value. And make skill scrolls a rare item.
> 
> Only the class skills will be allowed to decrease below 1. And skills
> unlikely to the class not below 2.
> 
> This could be fine tuned if you like the idea.

  One problem with this approach is that skill scrolls now become value for all 
classes and all levels (until such point as you've minimized the affinity for 
all your skills).  Which I'm not positive is a good thing - we've had things 
like this before (in particular, scrolls of identify) - the 'fix' for that was 
to add identify tables so that low level characters, or those not first to run 
to the mage shop after it reset, could identify their items.

  I have no problem with the general idea, but I think that any reduction in 
affinity should be done through quests (guildmaster teaches you something after 
completing quest, or some quest item reduces it).  I don't think having it 
changed on the whim of random treasure showing is that good.
> 
> 
>> The treasurelist for the races/classes then just get modified to give
>> the appropriate skills.  Eg, the fighter gets the attuned version of
>> the fighting skills, and repelled version of the magic skills).
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by this.  Could you explain it a little
> bit more?

  Treasurelists are used to determine a races/classes starting items, including 
spells and skills.  So it is a matter of modify the treasurelists as needed to 
have different sets of skills for different classes.  Right now, there is 
something like a 'basic skill' treasurelist, which contains all of the basic 
skill everyone starts with (search, disarm, melee weapons, etc).  Those need to 
get altered, so fighters get good versions of the combat skills, and mages get 
the bad versions, instead of everyone getting the same.

> 
> 
>> I'd almost think skillscrolls should get removed from the game (what
>> skills you start with is what you have, but you'd just start with
>> repelled versions, so would be sucky at them all).
> 
> This means you have to add real party support to CF.  Not only sharing
> xp, but assistance modes; group healing, archers able to fire from
> behind without hitting party members, ...
> 
> I'm not sure if this will work well in the 2D square world we have.

  IMO, there should not requirement that every map be completed by every 
possible character.  In fact, I think because that is largely the case, that is 
one reason a lot of the maps are hack and slash (everyone can fight, so everyone 
can do those).

  I don't see any reason that every character should be able to learn every 
skill.  And in fact, right now there are a few special class limited skills 
(meditation comes to mind as one that can not be learned later)

  That said, there are certainly some skills everyone should have, like 
mentioned above - melee weapon skills, search, disarm traps, some others. 
However, for some classes, they may start with really bad versions of those skills.

> 
> So stay with the concept to be able to learn every skill but powerful
> class items are only available through the class guild for members.
> 
> For example the guild master has given you the hanuk quest.  If you
> killed hanuk, you have to return for example the "scepter of hanuk".
> Now, depending on the guild, you'll get different rewards.  Being a
> pyromancer, you'll receive meteor swarm.  Being a fighter, you could get
> a powerful flamesword, or something like that.  Than the flag for the
> solved hanuk quest will be set, so you're unable to receive for the same
> quest a different reward (if you managed to change the guild).

  The idea of skill/class reform in terms of archetypes doesn't need/have to 
conflict with the idea of guilds.  With all the changes above, there is nothing 
to prevent there from being fighters guild - but instead of it being based on 
class, it is really based on your skill level.