[crossfire] exp loss changes

[Mark Wedel]

On 10/12/11 10:04 PM, Rick Tanner wrote:

>> On that page, in the notes, I mention that level loss will not
>> result in loss of AP - rather, it just means that it will take
>> longer before they get any new ones.
>
> Very interesting.
>
>> With such a method, I was thinking that instead of decreasing exp
>> from the player total, instead add a new field like exp_penalty or
>>   exp_loss. When a player dies, that field is increased by
>> appropriate amount- exp_loss += (exp - exp_loss) *
>> death_penalty_ratio.
>>
>> Then, any earned experience after that point gets applied to
>> exp_loss first, and only when that is zero, does exp get applied to
>> normal total.
>
> By chance could some of this exp loss by death or drain be regained
> through quest items/rewards or other in game mechanics?

  I didn't initially think about that, but yes, this would allow that to happen.

  A problem right now is there is no way to know how much exp a character has 
lost through death/draining.  As such, there is no way to restore it - if you 
give a character 10,000 exp, that is just 10,000 exp, which means if the 
character has not lost exp, that is just a bonus.

  But by tracking loss, one could basically do something like exp_loss -= 10000; 
if exp_loss < 0 exp_loss=0;

  So things like quests, potions, spells, etc, could reduce that field, but if 
that field is already 0, they gain nothing.  One could think of this to the 
restoration spell in AD&D - it is used to regain lost levels, but doesn't give 
the character exp.

  So in crossfire, one could have expensive potions to get back that lost exp. 
This would make monsters that do drain attacks much less annoying than now - it 
might cost a fair amount of platinum to get that potion, but at least you could.

  Having spells that do it would probably not work, as it would just be too easy 
for players then.  But potions, scrolls, praying at altars, etc, would seem to 
be possible solutions - and of course, there is nothing that they would have to 
restore it all - maybe they reduce it by 50%.  One could repeat that many times 
and get the number closer and closer to zero, but still never get it to zero by 
that method.