[crossfire] Attributes/Stats

[Mark Wedel]

On 05/22/10 04:14 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>>    That was my thought - make Cha relevant for some things, like paralyze,
>> slow. I'm not sure about poison (if you are poisoned and it is interfering
>> with the body functions, not sure what willpower could do).
>>
>>    However, one could also add some new abilities - for example a beserk
>> type attack mode (faster, do more damage, etc), but duration is based on
>> Cha or something - basically the idea is that you are pushing your body
>> (or mind for perhaps some spell related ones) beyond the point where most
>> people would just quit.
>
> Maybe, then, "Cha" could be renamed to "Willpower", or something like that, to
> better reflect such uses.
> Nitpick :)

  Maybe - certainly the original 6 attributes followed the AD&D naming, then at 
some point Pow was added.

  There isn't any reason that the names have to be the same.  Some games do have 
a stat like personality.

  I suspect no matter what we do, Cha will be a secondary stat - not critical 
for anyone, but like most stats, handy to have higher.  This even more so if 
maps/quests require minimum Cha or Cha + fame type check.

  I suppose one could add a bard type class, in which spells (songs) work a bit 
different and which Cha is a key stat, but that is not a simple change.  And I'm 
not quite sure how that would work as a class in crossfire.  What works for a 
table top game, or even other CRPG's where you have player controlled NPCs is 
different.  Since crossfire by in large is a solo play game, it means that the 
class has to be able to stand up on its own - something that really complements 
a fighter has limited value if you also have to be the fighter.



>>    That was sort of related to my idea in the skills discussion that
>> character get certain bonuses to their attributes at certain levels.  It
>> is really a semantic difference between the skill giving a +1 to dex, or
>> giving the character a real stat increase.
>>
>>    Also possible that maybe grant stat point in associated skills - eg, for
>> combat, could be str, dex, con attributes (player choice), and for magic is
>> is pow, int, ws, etc.
>
> Or something like 'each successfully cast spell gives you a 0.0001% chance of
> improving your Wis' - for hardcore playing characters, they'd have some
> increase.

  One has to be careful about such schemes - just results in one casting spells 
at every opportunity.  I've played some games like that, and so while I'm 
wandering through the countryside, I'm casting a spell because it will slowly 
improve my skill.

  You can try to control it - they spell has to do damage to creature, etc, but 
then you get the case of the 30th level character sitting in the starting house 
with a bunch of orcs so the spell damages something (if it doesn't kill the 
orcs, they can do it all day).  And if the requirement does become it has to 
kill them, now you fall back into an exp based system.


>>    That makes a lot of sense - it also means a high level character can't
>> give a new character a pile of potions to get 30 stats.
>
> Another option is to have potions at the end of a quest, given by a NPC
> specifically for you, no one else can use it.

  Yes - that could be done, but would require some new logic (otoh, if the npc 
is going to give a potion, why not just add logic instead like 'he trains you to 
be stronger' instead?)

>>    It would probably be nice for stat potions to be very rare - they are
>> hardly common now (IMO), but I think some of the issue is that at some
>> point, players don't have a lot of use for them (stats are maxed), so they
>> just get piled up. I wonder if there was always potential for characters
>> to improve their stats if that would effectively reduce the seemingly high
>> numbers of them.
>
> Make them alchemy-only items, with rare ingredients and high level
> requirement?

  I'd hate to make them alchemy only - that tosses more balance issues into the 
mix (by the very redesign of classes, some classes will have a hard time being 
able to do alchemy, so they are effectively deprived of potions).  One could add 
something like an NPC alchemist - you bring him the components, pay some amount 
of money, and he'll make the potion for you.


>>    While I'm not a fan of grinding, if players want to do it, I don't have
>> issues with it.
>
> Neither do I.
> But historically Crossfire is mostly that, so there's an unbalanced biais :)
> So trying now to fix it isn't too bad an idea, IMHO ;)

  For certain rare items, like potions, treasure lists and treasure chest could 
also be changed.  Right now, at some difficulty level, any random chest can have 
a potion in it.  One could instead add different quality of chests (common, 
rare, etc), and only rare ones might generate potions, and those chests should 
be used sparing - to an extent that random maps may contain only one such quest 
every 5-10 levels or something (and fact it may show up in the potion does not 
mean it would - it might still only be a 10% chance, so it means if you clear 
out a level 100 dungeon, you get 1 potion)


>>    However, I think there is a somewhat fine line there - hopping around the
>> world to do all the quests and get cool rewards is really just a different
>> form of grinding - sure, the player is not hitting the same map over and
>> over.
>
> Yes, but it's not the same as doing the 5894th time Raffle - if there are enough
> things to discover and such, that should be mostly ok.

  True, but anything that has random determination of reward (Raffle being an 
extreme example, but even rewards at end of dungeons) adds potential for doing 
repeats to get the item you want.

  One could make many of the rewards static (and many items are), but that also 
isn't ideal - it means one knows exactly where to go to get some item - I'm not 
sure that is a good thing either.  Some middle ground may be better - not sure.