Re: On bizarre contortions of crossfire to fix "abuses", was Re: CF: getting rid of too powerful characters

["Mark Wedel" <mark@icp.siemens.com>]

On Mar 10,  4:51pm, Robert Brockway wrote:
> Subject: Re: On bizarre contortions of crossfire to fix "abuses", was Re:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Peter Mardahl wrote:
>
> > If we HAVE to have a limit on level ( which I oppose because who knows
> > when the map set will get extended?) I'd favor this method.
>
> I am in favour of few characters being above 30th level.  A little while
> ago I made a suggestion that the experience scale should just double
> indefinately (or alternatively just level out at some very large value).
>
> I think it was mentioned that if I sent a patch (a trivial one indeed) it
> might be included as an alternative.  Unfortunately it would likely break
> existing characters (it could possibly be written in a fashion which
> allowed it to coexist with current chracters).

 It would really break existing characters - level is stored independent of
exp.  So in theory, you could have a level 100 character with 0 exp and the
program would handle it just fine.  They would just need a huge amount of exp
for level 101.

 The same is true for any change to the experience tables.  If made higher, it
just means that some characters will need much greater amounts of exp to gain
that next level.  It would be pretty trivial to have the load rourtine
calculate proper levels based on the current exp - that may break things as
high level characters may now have weapons they can not use anymore.


> To be honest I can't see why a straigh doubling system wasn't used in the
> first place.

 Tables are almost always better than formulas - much easier to tune a table
than a formula.

 Note that a doubling of each level would make things much tougher.  If we keep
the current 1000 exp for second level (which may not be a good thing), then
level 16 is 32,768,000.  Thats quite a bit different than the 900,000.  I would
like it at least reasonably possible to play up to the point where you can
complete most all of the quests.

 One thought I did have is to current shift all the exp tables down one -
instead of 1000 exp for level 2, make it 2000 exp for lev 2, 4000 for lev 3,
and so on but keep that table.  This at least slows down the first few levels
quite a bit (finishing the newbie tower gets you one less level, and it also
means the intermediate stuff gets slowed down.)

 In any case, I am likely to add a NEW_EXP_METHOD option to config.h.  The
immediate changes on that will be to eliminate the exp bonus for high stats and
changes of exp for different level monsters - if an orc is worth 10 exp, you
get 10 exp.  Only exception is if your race has an exp reduction.

On Mar 10,  5:25pm, David Sundqvist wrote:
> Subject: Re: CF: Crossfire playbalance
> On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Mark Wedel wrote:
>
> 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.

 This is probably a better method ideally.  It is just a lot more work
realistically (need to retune all the spells on how much extra damage you
get/level, as well as hp, sp, grace, weapon improvements, ...).  I do agree it
can be frustrating if you need a bunch of exp for next level and it is hard to
get - I would like to see more/better intermediate maps to help out on that -
one problem is finding quests in the middle range which you can handle (not get
killed) but has challenging enough monsters that you at least get some
reasonable amount of exp.  I would really like to add exp objects to quests -
you finish the question, you get some bonus amount of exp for doing so - this
would then make it so that mapmakers don't have to put a bunch of monsters in
the game for exp - they can have good challenging quests and still give a good
reward that doesn't have to be something like an artifact.


> 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'.

 There are limitations in weapons a character improves.  I don't believe there
is any limitation for items that can be found (so mr. friendly supercharacter
could go finish a quest, drop off the items he found for mr. newbie).  However,
this does give a new idea for a field to add for 0.96 - min_level.  A player
must be at least min_level to equip whatever item that might be.  This should
only really be used on artifacts and other special items.  Also, being it
setable by a map maker is always preferable to trying to have the game figure
it out - a +5 str/-5 int item could be very nice for a fighter, but a +5 str
and -5 con is certainly much less useful)


> 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.

 Note that if we remove the exp bonus/penalty for the stats, this becomes a
little easier - that stupid fighter, if he can actually kill anything with the
spells he is able to cast, then gets equivalant of full exp instead of some
reduced portion like it is now.


> 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.

 Problem is, there are some maps out there like that.  I believe there are
still some maps in brest which have piles of dragons on them.



> 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.

 Well, you can have a few rods/horns and switch between them and keep up a
pretty darn good rate of fire.  But they certainly reduce the desire for wands.


-- 

-- Mark Wedel
mark@pyramid.com
-
[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]