Level Restrict Rooms and Obj's
sla...@my-dejanews.com
I was wondering if anyone could help me as i have just started to code my own
mud and was wondering if anyone could help on the above subject.
Slaine
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
mwi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6kjd71$il6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
sla...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> I was wondering if anyone could help me as i have just started to code my
own
> mud and was wondering if anyone could help on the above subject.
The only help I have to offer is a question: Why? I've seen it done in some
Diku-variants, and it's always looked cheezy and played poorly. So what's the
point?
Mike just doesn't get it.
WYSIWYG464
>Subject: Re: Level Restrict Rooms and Obj's
>From: mwi...@my-dejanews.com
>Date: Thu, May 28, 1998 12:06 EDT
>Message-id: <6kk21t$ett$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>
>In article <6kjd71$il6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> sla...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering if anyone could help me as i have just started to code my
>own
>> mud and was wondering if anyone could help on the above subject.
>
>The only help I have to offer is a question: Why? I've seen it done in some
>Diku-variants, and it's always looked cheezy and played poorly. So what's
>the
>point?
>
>Mike just doesn't get it.
What exactly is it that you don't get? Level restrictions are cool as they add
incentive for people to actually play the game and get to the next level so
they can wear better eq (provided the game is
hack-n-slash such as ours). Otherwise, what is the point if you can
wear all the best stuff on the mud as a level one newbie?
As to level-restricted areas, that is also a good idea. We have plans to
implement some level 100-only (our top level mort) areas
which should make it fun to keep these guys mudding and to keep
building their chars and getting better eq. Otherwise, why would
they want to get all the way to 100 other than to get the 3 or 4
privileges they already get? Getting to 100 on our mud is very
much a challenge and it takes quite a few hundred hours to get
there (and that still needs a bit of work...it takes TOO long IMHO)
so it's nice to give them some special things of their own after they
reach their goal. This would also help encourage others to do
the same, especially if the 100-only areas are well-written.
Wysi :o)
Kevin Doherty
Thus spake WYSIWYG464 <wysiw...@aol.com> in
<199806051540...@ladder01.news.aol.com>(05 Jun 1998 15:40:57 GMT):
>>Subject: Re: Level Restrict Rooms and Obj's
>>From: mwi...@my-dejanews.com
>>Date: Thu, May 28, 1998 12:06 EDT
>>Message-id: <6kk21t$ett$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
>>
>>In article <6kjd71$il6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> sla...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I was wondering if anyone could help me as i have just started to code my
>>own
>>> mud and was wondering if anyone could help on the above subject.
>>
>>The only help I have to offer is a question: Why? I've seen it done in some
>>Diku-variants, and it's always looked cheezy and played poorly. So what's
>>the
>>point?
>>
>>Mike just doesn't get it.
>
>What exactly is it that you don't get? Level restrictions are cool as they add
>incentive for people to actually play the game and get to the next level so
>they can wear better eq (provided the game is
>hack-n-slash such as ours). Otherwise, what is the point if you can
>wear all the best stuff on the mud as a level one newbie?
Level restrictions on eq are a pretty pathetic way to promote leveling. If
your mud is at all worth its salt, the possibility of a newbie aquiring
enough money to buy the best stuff in the game without leveling should be
very slim. And not only that, but if someone spent that long on getting eq
instead of leveling, why deny them the eq they deserve? Level restrictions
rarely have any ingame reasons (the "Oh, this is too complex for someone of
your level" bit is pretty weak). I've never seen them done well on DIKUs,
though I've seen some other more implicit systems suggested here (and I
think some are imped onp some LPs).
>As to level-restricted areas, that is also a good idea. We have plans to
>implement some level 100-only (our top level mort) areas
>which should make it fun to keep these guys mudding and to keep
>building their chars and getting better eq. Otherwise, why would
>they want to get all the way to 100 other than to get the 3 or 4
>privileges they already get? Getting to 100 on our mud is very
>much a challenge and it takes quite a few hundred hours to get
>there (and that still needs a bit of work...it takes TOO long IMHO)
>so it's nice to give them some special things of their own after they
>reach their goal. This would also help encourage others to do
>the same, especially if the 100-only areas are well-written.
Remorting is a much easier way to extend the levels and such, imho. While I
don't have much quarrel with level-restricted areas, just having a few areas
just for level 100s still doesn't do much. Esp if it's as hard as you say to
get to that level, as you'd probably need a group of at least 6-8 I'd think,
and finding those people would be pretty difficult.
--
Kevin Doherty
kdoh...@sasami.jurai.net
Richard Woolcock
Kevin Doherty wrote:
>
> Thus spake WYSIWYG464:
> >What exactly is it that you don't get? Level restrictions are cool as they add
> >incentive for people to actually play the game and get to the next level so
> >they can wear better eq (provided the game is
> >hack-n-slash such as ours). Otherwise, what is the point if you can
> >wear all the best stuff on the mud as a level one newbie?
>
> Level restrictions on eq are a pretty pathetic way to promote leveling. If
[snip]
> >As to level-restricted areas, that is also a good idea. We have plans to
[snip]
> Remorting is a much easier way to extend the levels and such, imho. While I
> don't have much quarrel with level-restricted areas, just having a few areas
> just for level 100s still doesn't do much. Esp if it's as hard as you say to
> get to that level, as you'd probably need a group of at least 6-8 I'd think,
> and finding those people would be pretty difficult.
Both of the above are reasons against using levels. Levels are generally
used for equipment restrictions, pk restrictions, area restrictions, etc,
etc... restrictions should be balanced through in-character methods, not
out-of-character ones.
KaVir.
D. B. Brown
WYSIWYG464 wrote:
> What exactly is it that you don't get? Level restrictions are cool as they add
> incentive for people to actually play the game and get to the next level so
> they can wear better eq (provided the game is
> hack-n-slash such as ours). Otherwise, what is the point if you can
> wear all the best stuff on the mud as a level one newbie?
There's a serious problem with your game if a newbie having good
equipment unbalances the game. There's also a pretty big problem
if the use of equipment is the primary incentive for advancement
in the mud.
I'd suggest looking into making real changes to the mud and actually
fixing your mud's equipment problems, beyond using the 'stock'
level restriction kludge to solve the problem. It will really make
a more immersive and better game environment.
> As to level-restricted areas, that is also a good idea. We have plans to
> implement some level 100-only (our top level mort) areas
> which should make it fun to keep these guys mudding and to keep
> building their chars and getting better eq. Otherwise, why would
> they want to get all the way to 100 other than to get the 3 or 4
> privileges they already get? Getting to 100 on our mud is very
> much a challenge and it takes quite a few hundred hours to get
> there (and that still needs a bit of work...it takes TOO long IMHO)
> so it's nice to give them some special things of their own after they
> reach their goal. This would also help encourage others to do
> the same, especially if the 100-only areas are well-written.
As KaVir said in another post, this seems to be the intrinsic
problems of a level-based system rearing their ugly heads.
Since pointing out problems without giving any real solutions just
ends up leading into pointless bashing (and will eventually lead to
JA3 and George Reese calling each other morons based on each other's
opinions on the performance/scalability/usability of Java), allow me
to post the 'second generation level system' I'm using.
0. The system is primarily skill based.
1. "Level" is a measurement of the character's perceived social
importance.
2. Levels have no direct effect on a player's power level. If two
players, one level 100 the other level 1 with everything else
(equipment, skills, etc) being equal, the fight would be equal.
3. Levels are gained by accumulating experience. What feats give
experience to a player is dependant on the player's guild; a
warrior gains experience for defeating foes in combat. A thief
would to, but not to the same degree as the warrior. A healer
would gain nothing from defeating a foe in combat. However,
thieves gain experience from stealth-related actions and healers
gain experience from healing. All of these actions only grant
serious experience if there is some danger involved -- a healer
sitting in town square gets less experience than a healer treating
those in or near combat.
4. Trainers (and especially guild trainers) spend more time with
more important (i.e., higher level) players. Thus, higher level
players can gain higher skills through training.
5. There is no limit to skill or level advancement.
6. A low-skilled character may not be able to tell the difference
between using a normal and an exceptional item, while a master of
the appropriate skill will have vastly different results from a
normal or an exceptional item.
7. Exceptional items are _very_ rare -- they cannot be acquired by
simply slaying a certain monster. Most equipment in the game is
either generated randomly (based on the requirement of the
particular monster) or enchanted randomly.
#6 and #7 fix the unbalanced equipment problem. A newbie would be
hard pressed to acquire a "masterfully crafted longsword of
humanslaying and carnage", and even if the newbie could, he or
she wouldn't be able to tell all that much of a difference between
the above uber-weapon and a "slightly rusty longsword".
--
+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+
|Do you ever get the feeling that the story's|D. B. Brown |
|too damned real and in the present tense? |dbr...@stny.lrun.com |
| -Ian Anderson | "..." |
+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-+
Billy
So if I'm a healer on your MUD all that I do
is run along-side fighters and aid them like
some walking heal potion? Where's the glory?
I'm all for RP... but that's pretty ridiculous.
: )
Richard Woolcock
D. B. Brown wrote:
>
[snip comments about level based restrictions]
> Since pointing out problems without giving any real solutions just
> ends up leading into pointless bashing (and will eventually lead to
> JA3 and George Reese calling each other morons based on each other's
> opinions on the performance/scalability/usability of Java), allow me
> to post the 'second generation level system' I'm using.
>
> 0. The system is primarily skill based.
>
> 1. "Level" is a measurement of the character's perceived social
> importance.
Interesting...more of a 'fame' or 'status' rating than anything, then?
> 2. Levels have no direct effect on a player's power level. If two
> players, one level 100 the other level 1 with everything else
> (equipment, skills, etc) being equal, the fight would be equal.
I'm curious as to why you didn't drop levels altogether...you seem to
have created a levelless mud with a social "level" attribute. Is it
possible for a level 1 player to equal (or even rival) a level 100
player a specific field of skill?
> 3. Levels are gained by accumulating experience. What feats give
> experience to a player is dependant on the player's guild; a
> warrior gains experience for defeating foes in combat. A thief
> would to, but not to the same degree as the warrior. A healer
> would gain nothing from defeating a foe in combat. However,
> thieves gain experience from stealth-related actions and healers
> gain experience from healing. All of these actions only grant
> serious experience if there is some danger involved -- a healer
> sitting in town square gets less experience than a healer treating
> those in or near combat.
So you still have a lot of the combat element in your experience point
system... Doesn't this favour warriors over the other classes, or have
you managed to balance it?
> 4. Trainers (and especially guild trainers) spend more time with
> more important (i.e., higher level) players. Thus, higher level
> players can gain higher skills through training.
Is this actually any different from "You have to be level X to learn
skill Y" though, or is there some fuzzyness?
> 5. There is no limit to skill or level advancement.
Most muds cannot handle this because of area level restrictions. How
do you cater for the potentially unlimited-fighting-skill warrior? Are
there no skill caps at all? I assume skill improvement isn't linear...
> 6. A low-skilled character may not be able to tell the difference
> between using a normal and an exceptional item, while a master of
> the appropriate skill will have vastly different results from a
> normal or an exceptional item.
Sounds good...but surely Bubba doesn't have to be a master swordsman to
understand how to use the Sword Of Utter Sharpness And Painful Castration?
> 7. Exceptional items are _very_ rare -- they cannot be acquired by
> simply slaying a certain monster. Most equipment in the game is
> either generated randomly (based on the requirement of the
> particular monster) or enchanted randomly.
Interesting...what codebase is it? When you say 'randomly generated' do
you mean chosen at random from predefined list/s, or does the mud actually
assemble and name objects for you?
> #6 and #7 fix the unbalanced equipment problem. A newbie would be
> hard pressed to acquire a "masterfully crafted longsword of
> humanslaying and carnage", and even if the newbie could, he or
> she wouldn't be able to tell all that much of a difference between
> the above uber-weapon and a "slightly rusty longsword".
Does this mean the newbie would fight the same with both weapons, or
that they simply wouldn't know they were using anything special? It
would be IMO quite reasonable to make Bubba the newbie only able to
gain a small advantage from the "masterfully crafted longsword of
humanslaying and carnage", although when he became Bubba the master
swordsman the aforementioned blade should be deadly in his hands.
I had hoped you might plug your mud address at the end of the post...
if you don't respond to this can you please email me with it?
KaVir.
Khall
D. B. Brown <dbr...@stny.lrun.com> wrote in article
<35785479...@stny.lrun.com>...
> WYSIWYG464 wrote:
> > What exactly is it that you don't get? Level restrictions are cool as
they add
> > incentive for people to actually play the game and get to the next
level so
> > they can wear better eq (provided the game is
> > hack-n-slash such as ours). Otherwise, what is the point if you can
> > wear all the best stuff on the mud as a level one newbie?
[chop]
Actually, I've seen level restrictions implemented in some very good ways,
such as a newbie area, in a PK mud, or donation room(s) seperated by what
level of eq and player can enter it. And players are capable of 'cheating'
as much as IMM's are, ever been to a mud where some 15th level guy is
running around with all the best eq? Either because he's got 50-100th
friends and/or alts? *shrug* Her idea isn't something I would implement in
my mud, but I think to a certain extent level restrictions do help to keep
a balanced playing field, particularly on stock or mostly stock muds.
K.
Marian Griffith
In article <357866...@erols.com>, Billy
<URL:mailto:wpe...@erols.com> wrote:
> : )
I noticed the smiley, but nobody forces you to play healer on that (or any
other mud for that matter). Not to mention that clerics on a mud are in all
aspects just that: walking healing potions. Hopefully smart ones too.
Of course the only point in rewarding healers for healing is if their game
is as varied as the fighter's game. Thus healing, or stealing, or any other
profession, should require the same player (not character) skill as it does
to fight creatures.
Personally I think it is a -very- good idea to separate skill from levels.
Just my uninformed opinion
Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...
Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey
Marian Griffith
In article <3578B2...@nospam.dial.pipex.com>, Richard Woolcock
<URL:mailto:Ka...@nospam.dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> Kevin Doherty wrote:
> > Thus spake WYSIWYG464:
> > >What exactly is it that you don't get? Level restrictions are cool as
> > >they add incentive for people to actually play the game and get to the
> > >next level so they can wear better eq (provided the game is
> > >hack-n-slash such as ours). Otherwise, what is the point if you can
> > >wear all the best stuff on the mud as a level one newbie?
> > Level restrictions on eq are a pretty pathetic way to promote leveling. If
Of course players do not need any incentive to gain a level. The fact that
it is there is sufficient reason for players to want to reach it.
The concern about low level players obtaining high level (powerfull) bits
of equipment is a valid one, and one that can be solved immediately and
absolutely by level restrictions. Whether or not it's a desirable solution
is another question but it does solve the problem.
> > >As to level-restricted areas, that is also a good idea. We have plans to
> > Remorting is a much easier way to extend the levels and such, imho. While I
> > don't have much quarrel with level-restricted areas, just having a few areas
> > just for level 100s still doesn't do much. Esp if it's as hard as you say to
> > get to that level, as you'd probably need a group of at least 6-8 I'd think,
> > and finding those people would be pretty difficult.
> Both of the above are reasons against using levels. Levels are generally
> used for equipment restrictions, pk restrictions, area restrictions, etc,
> etc... restrictions should be balanced through in-character methods, not
> out-of-character ones.
I thought that levels are primarily used to indicate when a certain amount
of effort has been put into the game at which point the player is rewarded
with new skills and a visible proof that he or she has 'improved'. As such
levels are also an indication of relative power both for players and for
the monsters he or she encounters in the game.
Restricting areas to certain levels is just an extension of this. Again it
may be that others do not care for that use but it is a valid idea and one
that is in line with ordinary gameplay. It has the advantage that it is
familiar to the players where other solutions are more difficult to under-
stand for the novice player.
marian
Billy
Ah, not necessarily true.
Most MUDs that I've played (at least 40) have
a fighting clerical class / guild.
They use their healing abilities to heal _themselves_
or their friends during battle. They are _not_ walking
heal potions (as described in the other post). They are
somewhat degraded fighters with the ability to heal.
I did not say that you were forcing me to do anything.
I am merely stating that a class whose only function
is to follow others around like a puppy, healing them
is unappealing to me and probably to many others and it
should be rethought.
: )
Jonathan Briggs
In article <357AAD...@erols.com>, Billy <wpe...@erols.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I am merely stating that a class whose only function
>is to follow others around like a puppy, healing them
>is unappealing to me and probably to many others and it
>should be rethought.
>
>: )
When I played on Arctic, I remember a lot of clerics who thought like
that. "I hate being used like a tag-along heal potion!", they said
to themselves. Apparently they never caught on to the true power of
the cleric! It was almost impossible to form a powerful group
without at _least_ one cleric, and clerics not part of a clan were
scarce. A cleric joining a desperate group could set their destination,
call equipment, get them to locate new spellbooks for him, etc. If a
cleric felt he or she was being treated badly, well, who is to say that
missing the critical heal in the heat of combat and allowing the warrior
to die wasn't caused by network lag, hmm?
Jonathan Briggs
Billy
I have one last comment on this and then I'll shut up ; )
I'll illustrate my concern for a healing-only class with
a small example:
During battle (the player gains exp only through healing and
not through combat so he would have no reason to attack
the enemy) his screen would look like this:
A is the fighter, B is the monster, C is the healer..
A attacks B!
A hits B hard!
B hits A lightly.
C heals A with a spell.
A attempts do disarm B, but fails.
B impales A with his claws!
C heals A with a spell.
A parries B's attack.
B dodges A's blow.
C heals A with a spell.
etc...
Don't the actions of C seem to be robotic?
Why not make a cleric healing bot for yourself (it
would do the same thing probably).
What intelligence does it take to cast a heal spell
over and over again? Where's the fun in it?
I'm not saying it wouldn't he wouldn't be valuable.
I am saying he'd probably be bored stiff.
*shrug*
Richard Woolcock
Billy wrote:
>
[snip]
> Why not make a cleric healing bot for yourself (it
> would do the same thing probably).
> What intelligence does it take to cast a heal spell
> over and over again? Where's the fun in it?
> I'm not saying it wouldn't he wouldn't be valuable.
> I am saying he'd probably be bored stiff.
Then perhaps Cleric's should be able to select a deity, which would
dictate what sort of actions they had to perform to gain exp?
Something like:
God of War: Fighting gives exp
God of Death: Killing gives exp
God of Life: Healing gives exp
God of Fastfood: Making cheeseburgers give exp
God of Smithing: Making weapons and armour gives exp
etc...
That way clerics could choose how they wanted to gain exp.
KaVir.
Jonathan Briggs
On Sun, 07 Jun 1998 14:20:25 -0400, Billy <wpe...@erols.com> wrote:
>A attacks B!
>A hits B hard!
>B hits A lightly.
>C heals A with a spell.
>A attempts do disarm B, but fails.
>B impales A with his claws!
>C heals A with a spell.
>A parries B's attack.
>B dodges A's blow.
>C heals A with a spell.
>etc...
>
>Don't the actions of C seem to be robotic?
>would do the same thing probably).
>What intelligence does it take to cast a heal spell
>over and over again? Where's the fun in it?
>I'm not saying it wouldn't he wouldn't be valuable.
>I am saying he'd probably be bored stiff.
>
Don't the actions of A seem to be robotic?
Why not make a warrior bot for yourself (it
would probably do the same thing!).
What intelligence does it take to use a weapon
over and over again? Where's the fun in it?
A cleric at least has to actually _type_ something,
a warrior can just sit there, or maybe type bash or
parry once in a while.
*shrug*
Jonathan Briggs
mwi...@my-dejanews.com
> Most MUDs that I've played (at least 40) have
> a fighting clerical class / guild.
> They use their healing abilities to heal _themselves_
> or their friends during battle. They are _not_ walking
> heal potions (as described in the other post). They are
> somewhat degraded fighters with the ability to heal.
On the same thread, most muds I've played present mages, thieves, or any
other class type in the same light - watered-down fighters with some special
ability that they use in combat. That phenomenon springs directly from the
requirements of a combat-oriented game: If they can't fight, they'll never
advance, but if they can fight well *and* have all these nifty powers,
they'll unbalance everything!
>
> I did not say that you were forcing me to do anything.
> I am merely stating that a class whose only function
> is to follow others around like a puppy, healing them
> is unappealing to me and probably to many others and it
> should be rethought.
If you can't see any activity available to a pure healer other than becoming
a walking heal potion, then you obviously shouldn't be playing a healer.
You'll never have any fun at it. I recall having a lot of fun playing
cleric-types since the beginning of my mudding. Even with *just* healing
powers, clerics can become powerful forces in a society. Compare it to being
a doctor: they are highly educated, respected and well paid members of
society. And they "just" heal people. Combine that aspect with the
religious aspects of being a clerical healer, and imagine the power you wield
when your class is the only source of healing available other than waiting it
out. Try some of the following tricks:
-Demand an offering for your services. Organize with the other clerics on the
game to fix the price at a high standard and dissuade undercutting.
-Demand obedience to your god for your services. Recruit powerful characters
as holy knights and send them out to destroy your rivals! Declare certain
mobs as enemies of the faith and reward those who destroy them. Or declare
them favored of your diety and destroy those who harm them!
An important point to remember is that in many places, the cleric class has a
monopoly on quick and effective healing. (ab)use this fact to your
advantage...
Billy
mwi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> powers, clerics can become powerful forces in a society. Compare it to being
> a doctor: they are highly educated, respected and well paid members of
> society. And they "just" heal people. Combine that aspect with the
I don't think you can properly compare doing open-heart surgery
with typing 'cast heal <player>'. Turning someone
with 20 HP into someone with 50 HP is about as wonderous
as grass growing.
> religious aspects of being a clerical healer, and imagine the power you wield
Most non-fighter classes have arcane aspects that make them awe
inspiring. Clerics aren't special.
> -Demand an offering for your services. Organize with the other clerics on the
> game to fix the price at a high standard and dissuade undercutting.
Most players on MUDs are out for them and theirs and aren't
thinking on such grand RP scales as you're suggesting.
I'd probably be laughed off the MUD if I used a high
level cleric and asked a group, "Lets all join up and
fix prices!"
>
> -Demand obedience to your god for your services. Recruit powerful characters
> as holy knights and send them out to destroy your rivals! Declare certain
> mobs as enemies of the faith and reward those who destroy them. Or declare
> them favored of your diety and destroy those who harm them!
A bit deluded are we?
You seem to be squeezing blood from the clerical stone.
>
> An important point to remember is that in many places, the cleric class has a
> monopoly on quick and effective healing. (ab)use this fact to your
> advantage...
>
Along the same line mages, fighters, rangers, etc are just as
worthy of hire as clerics. So why would I want to join
a class that just types 'cast heal <player>' over and over
when I can be an awe-inspiring mage that summons terriffic
beasts from the nether-realm or hurls lightning bolts at my foes?
It is a lovely ability to heal but not the most fun, or
interesting by a long shot.
That's why I urge coders to make cleric guilds
that have healing, protection, undead control, holy
attacks, etc.. and not just different shades of one spell.
; )
Richard Woolcock
Billy wrote:
>
[snip]
> Along the same line mages, fighters, rangers, etc are just as
> worthy of hire as clerics. So why would I want to join
> a class that just types 'cast heal <player>' over and over
> when I can be an awe-inspiring mage that summons terriffic
An awe-inspiring mage that types 'cast fireball <victim>' over and
over? I suppose it beats an awe-inspiritng fighter that types 'kick'
over and over. All of these (including the cleric example) are due
to poor - and limited - implementations of the class.
> beasts from the nether-realm or hurls lightning bolts at my foes?
> It is a lovely ability to heal but not the most fun, or
> interesting by a long shot.
> That's why I urge coders to make cleric guilds
> that have healing, protection, undead control, holy
> attacks, etc.. and not just different shades of one spell.
Definately.
KaVir.
D. B. Brown
Billy wrote:
>
> mwi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > powers, clerics can become powerful forces in a society. Compare it to being
> > a doctor: they are highly educated, respected and well paid members of
> > society. And they "just" heal people. Combine that aspect with the
>
> I don't think you can properly compare doing open-heart surgery
> with typing 'cast heal <player>'. Turning someone
> with 20 HP into someone with 50 HP is about as wonderous
> as grass growing.
Then there's a problem in the game system which negates much of the
reason for being a healer. If casting healing spells is unimpressive,
then there would be no point in playing a healer.
Healing potions will not be available like candy on Jormundgand.
> Most players on MUDs are out for them and theirs and aren't
> thinking on such grand RP scales as you're suggesting.
> I'd probably be laughed off the MUD if I used a high
> level cleric and asked a group, "Lets all join up and
> fix prices!"
The game design specification which I posted which inspired this
isn't for most players on MUDs, really. One of the grand RP
scales I'm working at creating is various forms of mud-wide
economy, including some value of 'services rendered'.
> > -Demand obedience to your god for your services. Recruit powerful characters
> > as holy knights and send them out to destroy your rivals! Declare certain
> > mobs as enemies of the faith and reward those who destroy them. Or declare
> > them favored of your diety and destroy those who harm them!
>
> A bit deluded are we?
> You seem to be squeezing blood from the clerical stone.
So, in your opinion, what does a cleric do? Wander around behind
a fighter and heal him/her whenever needed and not ask questions?
> > An important point to remember is that in many places, the cleric class has a
> > monopoly on quick and effective healing. (ab)use this fact to your
> > advantage...
> >
>
> Along the same line mages, fighters, rangers, etc are just as
> worthy of hire as clerics. So why would I want to join
> a class that just types 'cast heal <player>' over and over
> when I can be an awe-inspiring mage that summons terriffic
> beasts from the nether-realm or hurls lightning bolts at my foes?
> It is a lovely ability to heal but not the most fun, or
> interesting by a long shot.
> That's why I urge coders to make cleric guilds
> that have healing, protection, undead control, holy
> attacks, etc.. and not just different shades of one spell.
I don't urge coders to make clerics or healers universally useful.
There is a lot more than sheer combat prowess on a mud.
On Jormundgand, clerics will have a few protective spells, most
likely a number of divination spells, and plenty of healing spells,
but likely very few to no healing spells.
I don't expect too many people to play healers or clerics, because
most people (like yourself) will find them to be a bit dull because
they have very little combat ability. I do expect more serious
role players and socialites to play clerics, however, and enjoy them
immensely because clerics will be in serious demand.
Slay
I'd really like to move away from level restrictions on eq, but
as we have a PK mud, I'd also not like having super-newbies running
about either :) I'm new to this newsgroup, and was just wondering
what types of ideas are floating around out there regarding
removing lvl restrictions from EQ, but maintaining mud balance.
Hmm, actually while typing this I thought of one idea . .
would putting more emphasis on the weight of objects and your
ability to use that object if it is too heavy for you be a
possibility? Oh well, just thinking aloud, I would appreciate
any suggestions.
Thanks in advance.
Marian Griffith <gry...@iaehv.nl> wrote:
<snip>
>The concern about low level players obtaining high level (powerfull) bits
>of equipment is a valid one, and one that can be solved immediately and
>absolutely by level restrictions. Whether or not it's a desirable solution
>is another question but it does solve the problem.
>
<snip>
Marian Griffith
In article <6lph8e$8...@obi-wan.fdt.net>, Slay
<URL:mailto:da...@yoda.fdt.net> wrote:
> I'd really like to move away from level restrictions on eq, but
> as we have a PK mud, I'd also not like having super-newbies running
> about either :)
There is no way to prevent newbies from acquiring powerful equipment
(eventually) and this leads to a power inflation. Unless you are do-
ing away with powerful equipment entirely or make it truly unique.
> I'm new to this newsgroup, and was just wondering
> what types of ideas are floating around out there regarding
> removing lvl restrictions from EQ, but maintaining mud balance.
The only good idea I have ever seen (sorry but I can not remember by
who) is to make the extras on weapons or equipment depending on the
skill in using it. Giving a newbie 'the sword of annihilation' would
not help her unless she has the skill to use it properly. If she has
not then it would work no better than the average longsword. In this
way the newbies must still invest time and effort.
Another, more nebulous, way is to reduce the importance of equipment
bonusses over 'skill at playing'. Newbies can be given things, but
knowledge on how to play the game must still be acquired personally.
The later solution would perhaps be more appropriate to a PK mud.
> Hmm, actually while typing this I thought of one idea . .
> would putting more emphasis on the weight of objects and your
> ability to use that object if it is too heavy for you be a
> possibility?
I think it would not be a good possibility. A strong character has a
big advantage and it would encourage the players to create trollmud.
Marian
Ilya, SCC, Game Commandos
Marian Griffith wrote:
>
> In article <6lph8e$8...@obi-wan.fdt.net>, Slay
> <URL:mailto:da...@yoda.fdt.net> wrote:
>
> > I'd really like to move away from level restrictions on eq, but
> > as we have a PK mud, I'd also not like having super-newbies running
> > about either :)
>
> There is no way to prevent newbies from acquiring powerful equipment
> (eventually) and this leads to a power inflation. Unless you are do-
> ing away with powerful equipment entirely or make it truly unique.
>
> > I'm new to this newsgroup, and was just wondering
> > what types of ideas are floating around out there regarding
> > removing lvl restrictions from EQ, but maintaining mud balance.
>
> The only good idea I have ever seen (sorry but I can not remember by
> who) is to make the extras on weapons or equipment depending on the
> skill in using it. Giving a newbie 'the sword of annihilation' would
> not help her unless she has the skill to use it properly. If she has
> not then it would work no better than the average longsword. In this
> way the newbies must still invest time and effort.
>
along these lines: not exactly the same, but the idea was there.
In this case, weapon bonuses would be scaled to the level of
the user. For example, a level 40 +40damage sword would only
provide +10 damage to a level 10 player, or whatever.
Not the best solution, I think, but definitely a move in
the right direction. These arbitrary 'you can't use that,
it's over your level' kinds of restrictions were removed
at least.
Cheers!
--
Ilya, SCC, Game Commando
http://www.gamecommandos.com
Il...@gamecommandos.com
Axel Eschenburg
Marian Griffith wrote:
>
> In article <6lph8e$8...@obi-wan.fdt.net>, Slay
> <URL:mailto:da...@yoda.fdt.net> wrote:
>
> > I'd really like to move away from level restrictions on eq, but
> > as we have a PK mud, I'd also not like having super-newbies running
> > about either :)
>
> There is no way to prevent newbies from acquiring powerful equipment
> (eventually) and this leads to a power inflation. Unless you are do-
> ing away with powerful equipment entirely or make it truly unique.
True..
>
> > I'm new to this newsgroup, and was just wondering
> > what types of ideas are floating around out there regarding
> > removing lvl restrictions from EQ, but maintaining mud balance.
>
> The only good idea I have ever seen (sorry but I can not remember by
> who) is to make the extras on weapons or equipment depending on the
> skill in using it. Giving a newbie 'the sword of annihilation' would
> not help her unless she has the skill to use it properly. If she has
> not then it would work no better than the average longsword. In this
> way the newbies must still invest time and effort.
I'd say that's the best way to do it. Not only can you control who can
use it that way (who has ever heard of a mage having a really high sword
skill so he can utilize a sword of anihilation properly), on the other
hand, you dont have all that stupid 'you're too weak to use it' and
'your guild cannot use it' done away with. Also, make a) the amount of
stuff people can carry level dependant, and b) let it depend on how much
you carry if certain spells/skills can be used well, then you can simply
make sure that better armor is heavier. That way, people will consider
what they wear.. what use is the pervect armor, if you cant really move
in it.
Also, you could make a few abilities impossible if the wearer wears some
armor material.. i.e. magic when encased in metal.. that would prevent
the mage running around in a full plate..
>
> Another, more nebulous, way is to reduce the importance of equipment
> bonusses over 'skill at playing'. Newbies can be given things, but
> knowledge on how to play the game must still be acquired personally.
> The later solution would perhaps be more appropriate to a PK mud.
Well, the question is, how to control that. If two people chat ooc cos
they know each other.. noone can tell differently. Or if an experienced
player starts with a newbie ? He would have all the knowledge to utilize
all the nifty stuff..
What would be possible, though, would be a slight variation on the first
idea. Let's say there is a sword of anihilation as example.. unless you
learned how to really use it, it's just a normal sword. And to really
use it, you have to get a 'binary' skill.. i.e. just a flag has it, or
hasnt it. That can be learned with an npc, who in turn wont teach
anyone. That way, special equipment could be limited to special people
easily, and without shoving the levels into peoples faces.
>
> > Hmm, actually while typing this I thought of one idea . .
> > would putting more emphasis on the weight of objects and your
> > ability to use that object if it is too heavy for you be a
> > possibility?
>
> I think it would not be a good possibility. A strong character has a
> big advantage and it would encourage the players to create trollmud.
Well.. i disagree with that genral statement. For armours, weight is a
good thing, cos there's not really a skill needed to wear an armor.
>
> Marian
> --
> Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
> out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
> my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
> will there be loneliness ...
>
> Rolan Choosing Talia,
> Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey
Axel :=)
Khall
Axel Eschenburg <esc...@harlie.han.de> wrote in article
<3587C3B2...@harlie.han.de>...
> Marian Griffith wrote:
> >
> > In article <6lph8e$8...@obi-wan.fdt.net>, Slay
> > <URL:mailto:da...@yoda.fdt.net> wrote:
[chop]
>
> I'd say that's the best way to do it. Not only can you control who can
> use it that way (who has ever heard of a mage having a really high sword
> skill so he can utilize a sword of anihilation properly)
Hmmm Elric of Melnibone, Rand Al'Thor ummm of course that's just a couple
off the top of my head, I'm sure (Yeah the guy from the DarkSword series) I
could think of more:)
, on the other
> hand, you dont have all that stupid 'you're too weak to use it' and
> 'your guild cannot use it' done away with. Also, make a) the amount of
> stuff people can carry level dependant, and b) let it depend on how
much<--I think this is a great and
> you carry if certain spells/skills can be used well, then you can simply
<--logical idea.
> make sure that better armor is heavier. That way, people will consider
> what they wear.. what use is the pervect armor, if you cant really move
> in it.
> Also, you could make a few abilities impossible if the wearer wears some
> armor material.. i.e. magic when encased in metal.. that would prevent
> the mage running around in a full plate..
IMO this is the _WORST_ (okay upon further reflection second worst:) thing
D&D ever did, making mages unable to wear metal armor, it was a cheesy
hacked in 'balancing' tool, that wasn't even reasonably explained in the
'code' (books) it was such a glaringly obvious and poorly plotted bit of
rubbish that it was one of about ten factors that caused me to switch to a
new 'codebase'. How you run your mud is obviously your business, from a
player of lots of mages and muds and RPGs I'd much rather see spells have a
90% fail rate while wearing metal armor than be told _You can't wear a
piece of (what is essentially clothing) because you're a mage_ and a nice
semi-logical reason explaining what causes this effect would be pretty
nifty too.
[chop]
K.
-- When you live in the shadow of insanity, the appearance of another mind
that thinks and talks as yours does is something close to a blessed
event.
-R. Pirsig --
The Wildman
On 17 Jun 1998 19:06:48 GMT, Wildman's eyes rolled up in his head and
froth dripped from his fangs when Khall
<jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net> said the following fighting words:
>
>IMO this is the _WORST_ (okay upon further reflection second worst:) thing
>D&D ever did, making mages unable to wear metal armor, it was a cheesy
>hacked in 'balancing' tool, that wasn't even reasonably explained in the
instead of learning how to wear armor". That is the poorest excuse I've
ever heard, and doesn't even make sense. The druids, however, made sense -
"steel interferes with their magic". Of course, they removed the druids.
--
The Wildman
Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks.
Fight spam - http://www.cauce.org/
A. Eschenburg
Khall <jpr...@a.saner.side.of.never.land.gte.net> schrieb im Beitrag
<6m9448$mrq$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
: Axel Eschenburg <esc...@harlie.han.de> wrote in article
: <3587C3B2...@harlie.han.de>...
: > Marian Griffith wrote:
: > >
: > > In article <6lph8e$8...@obi-wan.fdt.net>, Slay
: > > <URL:mailto:da...@yoda.fdt.net> wrote:
:
: [chop]
[more chop]
: Hmmm Elric of Melnibone, Rand Al'Thor ummm of course that's just a couple
: off the top of my head, I'm sure (Yeah the guy from the DarkSword series)
I
: could think of more:)
Well.. i wouldnt call them the usual, run of the mill mages. Of course,
those that (like them) learn magic after learning to fight, can use it. On
the other hand, i remember that both had incredible trouble cos of it. (or
cos of their heritage)
:
: , on the other
: > hand, you dont have all that stupid 'you're too weak to use it' and
: > 'your guild cannot use it' done away with. Also, make a) the amount of
: > stuff people can carry level dependant, and b) let it depend on how
: much<--I think this is a great and
: > you carry if certain spells/skills can be used well, then you can
simply
: <--logical idea.
: > make sure that better armor is heavier. That way, people will consider
: > what they wear.. what use is the pervect armor, if you cant really move
: > in it.
: > Also, you could make a few abilities impossible if the wearer wears
some
: > armor material.. i.e. magic when encased in metal.. that would prevent
: > the mage running around in a full plate..
:
: IMO this is the _WORST_ (okay upon further reflection second worst:)
thing
: D&D ever did, making mages unable to wear metal armor, it was a cheesy
: hacked in 'balancing' tool, that wasn't even reasonably explained in the
: 'code' (books) it was such a glaringly obvious and poorly plotted bit of
: rubbish that it was one of about ten factors that caused me to switch to
a
: new 'codebase'. How you run your mud is obviously your business, from a
: player of lots of mages and muds and RPGs I'd much rather see spells have
a
: 90% fail rate while wearing metal armor than be told _You can't wear a
: piece of (what is essentially clothing) because you're a mage_ and a nice
: semi-logical reason explaining what causes this effect would be pretty
: nifty too.
True. Just that most muds dont have a 'chance for failure' with specials or
spells.
Either you can do it or you cant. Personally, i'd agree with your
reasoning. In the end, it doesnt really matter exactly how stuff is
restricted, all that matters is that there are ways to do so without going
back to 'your guild cant wear this' and 'you are too weak to use it'
good ways, too.
: [chop]
:
: K.
:
: -- When you live in the shadow of insanity, the appearance of another
mind
: that thinks and talks as yours does is something close to a blessed
: event.
: -R. Pirsig --
:
Axel.
Richard Woolcock
Khall wrote:
>
> Axel Eschenburg <esc...@harlie.han.de> wrote in article
> <3587C3B2...@harlie.han.de>...
> > Marian Griffith wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <6lph8e$8...@obi-wan.fdt.net>, Slay
> > > <URL:mailto:da...@yoda.fdt.net> wrote:
>
> [chop]
>
> >
> > use it that way (who has ever heard of a mage having a really high sword
> > skill so he can utilize a sword of anihilation properly)
>
> off the top of my head, I'm sure (Yeah the guy from the DarkSword series) I
> could think of more:)
*chuckle* Actually the main character of the DarkSword series was one of the
'dead' - an extremely rare case of someone born with absolutely no magical
ability whatsoever.
Elric would certainly qualify though, as would Gandalf (yes, he used a sword
in LotR) and many others.
KaVir.