[crossfire] Balance ideas

[Mark Wedel]

On 01/ 3/11 01:27 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote:

>> It also seems that this doesn't necessarily change balance much in itself -
>> it makes spells much more flexible, but the key for the balance on that is
>> defining the right base values for things like damage, duration, radius
>> and sp cost.
>
> Yes. Though sp cost could either be fixed by level like now, or maybe a
> combination of duration, power and radius (for instance it costs more to make
> it stronger that to make it larger).

  Yes - that is reasonable.  But I also wonder if there is/should be a way to 
increase potency at the expense of sp cost.

  Taking that fireball example, changing the weighting would more or less keep 
the sp cost the same - but the power of the fireball itself does not change all 
that much.  But maybe there are some modifiers which increase the power (eg, 
damage, duration, range), but also drastically increase the sp cost - if you 
want to try and emulate current spell effects, your sort of need this.

  Otherwise, just by changing weighting, you will never be able to get something 
as powerful as a large fireball currently is - but at the same time, the large 
fireball itself is higher level and costs considerably more sp (base 16 sp vs 6).

>
>
>
>>    I would guess that there would still be higher level spells out there
>> with higher base damages, durations, etc (eg, large fireball as we have
>> now) - am I right in that, or are you thinking of reducing number of
>> spells and just letting players adjust the parameters to get desired
>> results?
>
> I'm thinking of reducing the spells. Drastically.
> Make 'small fireball', 'medium fireball' and 'large fireball' mere aliases to the
> 'fireball' spell, with different weights roughly emulating the current
> behaviour.
> Gaining power will be a matter of leveling, not finding a higher version of the
> same spell.

  Fair enough, just see note above.

  But one other thought would be is there even higher level spells, or are 
pretty much all spells going to be first level, but it is the power of the spell 
that changes?

  This is just my preference, but at some level, it is nice to have things to 
try and achieve (once I get 10th level, I can cast this cool spell) - if number 
of spells is drastically reduced, I have a feeling that effect would also change.


>> Monsters and players:
>> ---------------------
>> That looks pretty good - one thing I might add is 'should monsters use the
>> same rules for stats as players?'  Right now, the meaning of stats for
>> monsters is completely different than it is for players.
>
> I would say 'yes'.
> But maybe change the scale, have players start at level 5 on 150, make
> monsters from 1 to 500.

  Maybe - but presumably, just as stats help out a player, under basis of same 
rules, one could adjust power of monsters by their stats.

  For example, the average new character is going to have a stat average of 12 
or so, decent armor, decent weapon, etc.  If those kobolds have a stat average 
of 4, and no armor and crappy weapon, it should still be pretty easy for the 
character to kill those kobolds.

  Just like characters, level isn't everything - a level 100 character with no 
items and no spells would likely be a fairly easy target for a much lower 
character to take out.

  I've also thought of the idea of changing stats so the range is much greater - 
say 1 to 100 - in some ways, it is easier for players to improve stats (stat 
potions work better) - but under such a system it may still be very difficult 
for a character to get one stat above 75, let alone 3 or 4 stats.  But powerful 
monsters might very well have several stats above that.