Re: CF: Crossfire playbalance

[David Sundqvist <David_Sundqvist@vd.volvo.se>]

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Mark Wedel wrote:

> On Mar 8,  3:00pm, Peter Mardahl wrote:
>  But is there really a great need for maps for level 50, level 60, ... people?

Well, if we work well, eventually there will be :).

>  If you sort of follow the theory that you might gain a few levels for any
> quest/map series, than to have good coverage (multiple choices), you need a lot
> more maps to cover the level 50->100 range than to cover the level 10-20 range.

Yes. But with a few levels, say, on average 3-4 levels, you get 10
quests/map series per character. In my opinion, that is a bit low. The
game should be playable within a useful powerrange for much longer than
that.

Which is why I suggest that the general progression of power gain is made
slower, rather than the level gain. Making it more difficult to gain
levels, and limiting max level, is likely to frustrate players. Letting
the power gain for each level go a bit slower is less intrusive, since the
'accomplishment' of improving the character remains. 

>  I personally would like to have a huge number of choices to get up to level 30
> or so (I can try path X,Y,Z,... and then I can try each of the paths with a
> different class for a completely different challenge, etc), compared to having
> just a few paths that go all the way up to level 100.

Yep, I agree. I dont think we should spend too much time worrying about
the higher levels either; it's a difficult to balance area, and as long as
the base play isnt balanced, we can only do 'fixes'.

The progression path from 1-30 (or 1-60 stretched out) is much more
important for the basic gameplay, and building on a solid foundation there
would be better. 
 
>  In some sense, maps for high level characters are only needed because
> character can become high level.  the high level maps tend to also start to
> create problems (since this map is for level 50 people, we need to have some
> really good items in it (better than that level 30 map over there), and so on.

Yep. That also needs to be gone over, to make sure quests are balanced. 

> > How about forever removing stat maximums?  This will enforce your
> > policy of "trading off" stats.  A person will never be able to
> > "maximize" stats, because there will be no maximum.  Omega works
> > this way:  there's a formula for the bonus per stat over a certain
> > amount. One thing though:  leave in the "intrinsic", racially defined
> > stat maximums, unchanged.
> >
> > I support stat bonus maximums for any single ITEM, however.  A
> > taifu +20 with +5 to every stat is just ridiculous.
> 
>  Note that the current stat maximums are 30.  Since characters racial maximums
> at 20, that means to max out every stat, the character needs +10/stat.

Hmmm, we already have a (good balanced way) to avoid the really powerful
weapons to be used by lowlevel characters (cant wield a weapon with more
than whatever in bonus). Are the stat bonuses included in that? Otherwise,
including the stat bonuses+weapon bonus (or, alternately, being even more
nasty with it) in the calculation would be a better way to limit misuse of
extreme artifacts by 'inheritance'.
 
>  Some of this is probably caused by new artifact items I alluded to above
> (armor that gives you stat bonus, shields, helms, ...).  As it is now, a
> character could probably max out any specific stat he wants to, but not all of
> them.

Well, enough of them to really matter anyway. Currently, without really
trying extremely hard, I usually end up in the higher 20's on most stats.
But for character class/race separation, I think it should either be
possible to be rather good (around 20-24) in all stats, *or* use a
character that can achieve up towards 30 in some scores, but balanced by
maxing out below 18 in others.

I prefer amending the grounds for how good a character can get
(abilities), rather than to limit the actual skill. A fighter type
character will be able to get as 'good' as a wizard in spellcasting, but
it would require an extreme dedication to get around the disadvantages of
difficulty of learning and lower spell points. 

>  Go from a 29 to 30 is a 30 point bonus, and even 28 to 29 is a 20 point bonus.
>    Going from 19 to 20 is a 1 point bonus.  So as it is right now, maxing out
> some of the stats makes for a major bonus - if they are evened out, then it is
> more a tradeoff (I can increase my grace of maxsp by a minor amount - no I can
> improve my maxsp a major amount by my grace a minor amount).  That change would
> reduce the idea of maximizing stats from (and if it was pretty much linear,
> then the tables could be replaced and use a simple formula).

Changing over to a formula would remove the difficulties with allowing
higher abilities too, to allow higher diffrentiation. If we want to.
 
>  I certainly don't like the idea of forced retirements.  I don't see a problem
> letting that level 30 character run around and do what quests he wants to do
> (as long as he doesn't spoil the games for others on the server, but that can
> happen no matter what level the character is).  However, I don't see a big
> problem limiting the max level to 30.  You could still let exp go up, so that
> maybe given time, that character could even get to level 30 in all the
> subsidiary skills.  For this, you could even put out some decent maps so
> characters can still play them.

Well, I agree, I dont like real hard limits in any way. I'm more in favour
of limiting things by diminishing returns. With an ever increasing (I dont
think it should double tho... add a smaller amount instead) experience
needed for advancement, I think that would be enough to 'cap' the game.
That way, people wont easily *get* to those levels unless there are maps
that support gaining such amounts of experience.

> 2) In reality, most of the really great artifacts should probably be 
> counterbalance with something bad - most fiction tends to do that.  I
> believe most of the newer custom artifacts on the maps only gives
> postives with no negatives, so they are items you use all the time.  

Yep, that would also work to the advantage of allowing diffrentiation. If
you get the Wizards Hat of Foo and Robe of Ultimate Power you'll have a
good Pow and Int and generate SP like never before, but since the Robe
appears to be rather tangly and difficult to fight in, dont expect a
serious wc, etc.

> 4) Other areas in which players power has been increased over the
> versions is the addition of rods/horns (unlimited charged items), and
> just more spells, which give players more options/ways to kill stuff.  I
> personally don't mind the horns much, because they are rare enough and
> come in few enough flavors that they don't shift things to much.  Even
> the addition of the artifacts file has increased player power (better
> rings now fairly readily available).  All of this stuff isn't
> necessarily bad, but is one of those things that does make the
> player more power than they once were.  I think a lot of
> this adds some nice color, but does still give more advantage to the
> player.

Yep, the rods and horns dont really affect the game in a bad way. They're
fairly limited in use anyway, and due to having to regenerate the power
they rarely become a good zap-o-matic weapon. Rather a tool for the clever
players to use for specific situations.

But either way, these power increasing items need to be balanced by
monster power/protection/hitpoints/speed. And maps. 

Best regards,
David

-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]