[crossfire] What about a gameplay revolution?

[Mark Wedel]

Juha Jäykkä wrote:
>>> Nice point. Perhaps the recipies should be force-objects on the
>>> character?
>>   Yes - that would work.  It would also allow something along the line of
>> 'what recipes do I know'.  Instead of having to jot down recipes you find
>> in the game someplace else (or keep all those scrolls), one could get a
>> listing of all recipes you found, etc.
> 
> This would imply that one cannot learn recipies by talking to other players, 
> would it not? That may be good but it could also be bad. (I'm assuming a 
> character cannot create items whose recipies are unknown to the character.) 
> Either some recipies would have to be much more common or there would need to 
> be a shop for them.

  Note that right now, a recipe does not disappear when read.  So in practice, 
characters/players could share recipes fairly easily as long as they keep the 
recipe books.  That seems reasonable.

  A character would not be able to write down recipes (or maybe only could do so 
with appropriate skill level) and hand it off.  The recipe management is really 
a convenience for the player (and some other benefits) - it may not imply an 
ability to impart that knowledge to other people.

  In real life, one could see this as most people know how to make some number 
of food items without following a recipe.  But if you tried to tell someone else 
how to do it, especially if they are novice, you may leave out steps, put 
something in the wrong order, etc.  When you make it yourself, this would be 
apparent - but for someone else that doesn't know better, this could be a real 
problem.

  Some number of recipes should probably basically be common knowledge.  One 
doesn't have a recipe to tell people how to boil water, and same could be true 
for some basics in crossfire.  And some number of recipes probably should be 
allowed without all that complexity, so could be found out reading the formulae 
file, talking to other players.  But the more advanced recipes probably require 
actual having learned it.

  It may also be that at certain levels of those skills (including level 1), you 
learn various recipes.  Level 1 might be the the basics.  Level 10 you might 
learn some recipes automatically - this in a sense is that after enough 
experience, you'd probably figure out how to do some more complex stuff even if 
you don't have a recipe.

  And just like spell books having been made more available by the bookshop 
(sells common spells but at inflated prices), same could perhaps be true of 
recipes - finding more recipes should be easier to do, but maybe it costs something.

> 
>>   I think you do have a valid point.  One problem (IMO - others don't see
>> it this way) is that any class can pick up any skill.  So while racial
>> bonuses do matter, what class you start with doesn't have much impact.
> 
> I belong to the sect which supports almost meaningless classes, but there 
> would need to be some incentive to specialise in a single class. Somewhere in 
> this (or some other?) thread the suggestion of using the highest skill level 
> for HP and perhaps something else, too, would be one step in that direction. 
> Another might be gradual loss of skills if they are unused. That would 
> definitely be realistic, but would it be fun? I don't know (I usually only 
> play heavy magic users without much focus on melee so it would not matter 
> much to my style of playing).

  There are those two schools of thoughts, as it relates to skills.  I don't 
think there is necessary a right or wrong answer to it, but that answer probably 
needs to be decided.

  I'm not fond of taking away exp for lack of use of skills.  Defining lack of 
use becomes problematic (if I kill 1 orc every hour, is that enough to not have 
my fighting skill go down, etc?)

  Simplest way to do it is that for every X ticks of play, exp in all skills go 
down Y%.  Values of X and Y would have to be determined.  In a sense, skills you 
don't use would eventually lose all exp.

  The problem here is that this messes up folks that want to hang around and 
help other players, chat, etc.  It also means you really want to optimize the 
time you're not gaining exp (taking half an hour to sell your items means you 
have lost some exp, etc).  And things brings a new meaning of characters who 
forget to log out - you no longer die of starvation - you just lack any exp.

  So rather than penalize folks, I'd much rather reward certain behavior.  I 
think that is generally easier to do with fewer side effects.


>>   Another possibility is limiting certain items by class and/or race. 
>> Maybe only spellcasters can use a wand in their hand instead of some other
>> weapon.  If like above, that wand has affinities for spellcasting type
>> skills, it effectively gives them a leg up.  Likewise, certain weapons
>> should probably only be usable by fighter.  If we want to prevent fighters
>> from be mages, mages also shouldn't be able to be fighters.
> 
> I agree that the prevention must go both ways, but I have always disliked the 
> [A]D&D way of class preventing use of an item. There might be a skill to use 
> wand (one that magic users initially have) or something, but not a total 
> block. Also, to increase the effectiveness of wands in magic users' hands, 
> their power might be tied not only to the level of the wand, but also to the 
> magic-skill-level of the user, or even Pow score or something (Str gives 
> fighters bonus to damage, why not Pow to wands?).
> 

  This sort of goes back to that decision above - should crossfire have stricter 
classes, or should classes be meaningless (aside from starting skills).

  If the former, then tieing things to skills makes sense - you can't use a 
sword because you don't have the skill, etc.  And in a strict class system, you 
wouldn't be able to learn the skill.

  Crossfire currently has teh second case, where classes are meaningless, so 
skill restrictions don't mean much, because you'll just learn the skill at some 
point - its only meaning is the first few levels until you find/can afford the 
appropriate skill scroll.

> Also, it might be nice to have race-bound items. There's a lot more basis for 
> requiring a certain race to use an item - no other race has a fireborn's 
> tentacles or an elf's pointy ears, for example; skills to use items can be 
> acquired, racial features cannot - especially racial "mystical" features 
> like "elven soul" or something. Bind items to those and they effectively 
> belong to that race (there might be a quest brewing here, too...)

  Yes - race bound items should be used more.