Ryandor.com

Forums
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:07 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 11:54 am 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 8:53 pm
Posts: 1864
Location: Hayward, CA
Most role-playing games have an artificial advancement system of some sort. This is usually a way to help determine the success and failure of activities, of which the player has no real-world knowledge or should not have in-game knowledge. In Ultima Online, this takes the form of a skill-based system. In Dungeons and Dragons, it takes the form of a level/class/experience based system.

The advantage to a class-based system is that it encourages players to fill specific, predefined roles that are interdependent with other players. In online games, this encourages interaction based on perceived necessity or at least perceived advantage. The downside of this system is that it limits players to the predefined roles that may or may not fit a player, and may be seen as intimidating when a player is faced with such permanent decisions as that of class.

The opposite is a non-class system where a player may freely choose and mix skills of their choice. This can encourage player diversity if implemented well, or player similarity if implemented poorly. Assuming that there is a wide variety of skill trees to ascend, and only a certain maximum of skill points may be allotted at any given time amongst all of them, and they are all or mostly perceived as useful, then players will naturally diversity into many distinct and often unpredicted roles. Diversity, especially into unpredicted roles, could be seen as a major advantage. On the other hand, if there are too few useful skills, and the player is given the option of choosing all of the most useful ones at once, then it tends to limit the players into the "one size fits all" category of skills that all effective players choose.

Somewhat separate from the issue of class/non-class is the issue of levels versus other systems, namely percentages and trees. The advantage to level-based systems is that it grants the player a sense of accomplishment. The disadvantage is that it separates players based on their level, and, in most situations, forces players to make many permanent and often intimidating decisions. The advantage of a percentage-based system is that it is easier to go down and up in the system, so permanent decisions are fewer, and the difference between new players and the most advanced can be much smaller and varied. Tree-based systems are rarely reversible, and suffer the same problems as level-based systems, but with less separation between generally advanced and generally new players since there is not an overall level representing the stage of the character. Of course, many mixes of these systems have been tried, and others are possible.

Any thoughts on any of this?

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 1:06 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:59 am
Posts: 67
Location: Netherlands
I don't agree.

I don't think classes are limiting. They are just there to prevent irrealistic and/or unwanted skill combinations. A regulation meganism. Implementation makes it fail or succeed. If the implementation makes it a one-time-only decision, then that is dumb. People change.

On level vs percentages, isnt that comparing 2 types of apples ? Whetter I'm a level 10 paladin, or a paladin with 100str 100dex xint , what's the difference ?

I don't see how a tree model would prevent a player from taking multiple roads, he just needs to be able to be on several branches at once, limiting both the branch and the total of all branches based on level or base skill.

It's all in the implementation imho. The two systems combined would be the ideal combo, if implemented okay :/

_________________
What is, is
What exsists, exists


Greetz
Planet_Jeroen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 1:28 pm 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 8:53 pm
Posts: 1864
Location: Hayward, CA
Planet_Jeroen wrote:
I don't think classes are limiting. They are just there to prevent irrealistic and/or unwanted skill combinations. A regulation meganism. Implementation makes it fail or succeed.


You say they are not limiting and that they prevent things from happening in the same paragraph. There are other ways to achieve a realistic balance and to discourage unrealistic (well, in terms of fantasy reality) behavior without outright forbidding it from a game mechanic standpoint. I also do not agree with the notion of developers knowing better than players do about what they should and should not be able to do, within reason.

Planet_Jeroen wrote:
If the implementation makes it a one-time-only decision, then that is dumb. People change.


I agree.

Planet_Jeroen wrote:
On level vs percentages, isnt that comparing 2 types of apples ? Whetter I'm a level 10 paladin, or a paladin with 100str 100dex xint , what's the difference ?


Generally speaking, levels are more like stairs, whereas percentages are generally more like ramps. Besides that, a character level is an overall representation of the strength of the character, whereas a skill percentage is for one specific skill, so it becomes much easier (and more realistic) for vertical mobility where a player can "forget" one type of activity in favor of another, whereas in a level system that often requires "forgetting" many activities to delevel (often through punishment mechanisms, no less).

Planet_Jeroen wrote:
I don't see how a tree model would prevent a player from taking multiple roads, he just needs to be able to be on several branches at once, limiting both the branch and the total of all branches based on level or base skill.


That is, after all, the whole idea behind a tree. I never said otherwise.

Planet_Jeroen wrote:
It's all in the implementation imho. The two systems combined would be the ideal combo, if implemented okay :/


Of course, it is all implementation specific, and any mix or combination may exist. What combination would you choose, and how would you implement it, and why?

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 1:56 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:59 am
Posts: 67
Location: Netherlands
Currently I am working on a system based on the 5 elements.

You get to distribute a % over the 5 elements.

Each element gives a base skill, this skill is leveled based on the % in the parent element.

Each base skill level enables another skill-set within it.

As base levels advances, so does skill cap in the PREVIOUS skill set, allowing to GM ALL those skills. At the top level you get to choose a specialisation in 1 or 2 of the skills in the last skill pack to GM those.

The current skill system of UO is not fir for such a devision: it lacks sub categorisation in the presented skills. So I would have to rewrite the whole thing... I don't see this happening anytime soon :)

The intermediate I would settle for is no total skillcap, but skillcaps on grouped skills: mining, blacksmithy, tailoring, lumberjacking, tinkering, etc. capped at max 400 points when you sum all skills up.

Then class and race the whole thing. Races would affect stats, classes would rule out certain skills. I don't care what my players think about it, a necro will not cast holy something, and a warior wil not cast anything, unless he's a paladin. And the Ogre that incists on being a mage at 30 inteligence is more then welcome.

_________________
What is, is
What exsists, exists


Greetz
Planet_Jeroen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 4:28 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 12:13 am
Posts: 414
Location: West Virginia, USA
I've played games with pretty much all the possibilities listed.

RF Online had classes, and each class had (3?) main categories of powers, each of those was divided into beginner/intermediate/advanced/master type subcategories, each of those had specific abilities/spells/skills within them, and each of those abilities/spells/skills had a percentage AND a level. It was the single most confusing and annoying system I've ever played.

For example, and I might be off here I only played it a week or so and cancelled the account... say I pick a non-ranged attack fighter class. I'll have force skills, melee skills, whatever. My melee skills is divided into beginner, etc. categories. Starting out I can only do beginner, I'm not sure when the stuff inside Intermediate opens up, perhaps when my "CLASS" (which increases via experience) reaches level 30? Anyways, my beginner "Melee" category starts at level 1 itself, and contain things like thrust, stab, wild swing, whatever. Each of those starts at level 1, as i use them they increase in percentage, then go to level 2 after that. Nothing can go to level 3 until "Melee" itself gets to level 2, "Melee" itself gets to level 2 when my class gets to level "whatever".

Unnecessarily stupidly complicated... and regardless of how customizable that might end up in the very long term, everyone still played pretty much the same builds of characters. This was also irreversible, if you started with a bad build you were stuck with it. You could literally dead-end a skill, and thus be unable to raise it due to skills only raising on mobs equal to their level, and only on mobs YOU could gain xp off of (which required your CLASS level as well be equal).

Lineage 2 had a level/class system. While killing npcs you got experience and skill points. Everytime your experience got to 100% you gained a level. Every x levels you gained access to new skills you could 'buy' with the skillpoints. This also was irreversible, but you wouldn't really want to. The classes only got to pick from skills within their own class, so you'd ideally want to get all the skills anyways. It allowed the least flexibility in character advancement, because ifyou were a certain class, then your skills would be identical to all other of that class.

World of Warcraft used the class, level, and skill tree method, which IMO was the 2nd worst. If you made a bad choice (and you wouldn't know it till much later of course) you wasted those points, and wasting them was a sucky thing to do. It also didn't do much good giving people the choices, because everyone went for the same builds anyways for whichever class they had picked.

AD&D had the class and level/xp system. which is pretty much the most restrictive. At level 'x' the fighters can hit this well, the mages can cast this many spells if he knows them, the thief can sneak around this well and climb that wall that well, etc etc. None of this varied whatsoever except by gear and your small modifiers from stats/race.

BUT! it also had weapon and non-weapon proficiencies, which were almost unlimited (limited only by imagination of the DM). At char create you get say, 4 weapon and 3 non-weapon proficiency slots to fill up as a fighter, you can choose to put 2 slots in the long sword so you hit real well with it, and 1 slot with the bow so you can at least be useful at range. Then you put say 1 slot in reading/writing the common tongue (so you can read the sign that says DANGER: KEEP OUT!!!), another in herbalism so you can find the plants that cure the athlete's foot you got from running around in metal shoes all day, and the final slot in dancing, because you really wanna impress the tavern whench that keeps winking at you. Then every x level thereafter, based on your class, you get x more weapon/non-weapon proficiency slots to fill up. Doubling a proficiency you already have makes it better.

People look at AD&D and see "ew, i gotta be either a fighter or mage or whatever, that's so limited!" but they don't realize NOTHING in that game was limited whatsoever, unless the DM and the players chose to limit it. This IMO was the best system I've found so far.

Ultima Online, as dated and unappreciated as it is, is easily the next best system. 50 (50+ now) skills to choose from, you can raise them as high as you want, up to their cap and your skillcap of course, and pick and choose whichever you like. This was great too... except that you either have to limit people to 700.0 total points like OSI did, which is too restrictive IMO, or you have people playing uber-characters that know everything and are one-man armies by themselves, which is too free IMO. Even at 700.0, I can gm magery, healing, a weapon of choice, tactics, parrying, anatomy, and one other skill of choice, thus making me godlike.

What we did with my shard is try to combine AD&D and UO methods. There are 18 different classes: fighter, mage, thief, bard, craftsman, paladin, ranger, and 11 priest classes (one for each of the 11 gods). Each class has a skillcap, tentatively, of 900.0, and gets to pick and choose those skills they wish to learn that are available to their class. A fighter for example gets no magery, a mage gets no blacksmithing, etc etc. Skills that are polar opposites have a 0 skillcap (hiding/stealth on a paladin for example), skills that are kinda used but not necessarily a beneficial skill for that class have anywhere from 35.0 to 75.0 skillcap for that class. Skills that any Tom, Dick, or Harry could know (fishing for example) have normally a 75.0 to 80.0 skillcap for all classes.

I'm sure people will still end up with a favored set of skill choices for each class, and the classes themselves will obviously push toward certain skills by default (magery for mages, tactics for fighters, etc.), but I don't think that can be helped.. as I've seen that behaviour in EVERY game and EVERY advancement method.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 6:18 pm 
Offline
Slayer of Fools
Slayer of Fools
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 4:54 pm
Posts: 1289
I don't know why any of that would make you think the AD&D system is so great for a computer game Rose. I think it was the best for what it was, back in the day before they went crazy with all these additional rules. It was a simple (compared to other more detailed games) set of rules for sitting around the table with a bunch of your friends and playing a game. Didn't have to get bogged down in mechanics. Didn't have to make 50 rolls per person per round of combat. It just played well.

Having a computer to do the gruntwork there is just so much more possibility.

_________________
This space for rent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2006 9:44 pm 
Offline
Posting Whore
Posting Whore

Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Colorado Springs, Co.
Stormcrow points out what its all about. Players are there to have fun and not sit around for hours using a third party program to plot their skill trees like they do for some online games now.

UO is very simple and straight forward which is why its so popular for an online game. Anyone can understand it and if they make a mistake its easy to fix or experiment to find that perfect mix of skills that creates what the "player" feels comfortable with.

Star Whores Galaxies has a tiered system that is very limiting and overly complicated for what it does for example and if you make a mistake its hard to fix.

Anarchy Online has a tree system of sorts where the skills are linked to certain stats and while it gives you points to use to zero out skills and realocate the points along your skill path its actually the items in the game that create the complications since they require all sorts of skill combinations to use which becomes a huge pain in the ass and very limiting at higher levels.

There is nothing wrong with classes in any game and that is one thing I have always wished UO and did a little more with since it would help stabilize the community aspect and promote "team" or guild interaction instead of that one ubber GM everything with powerscrolls and artifacts from solo'n everything in the game.

Levels suck just no matter how you look at them and is a huge pitfall of the majority of online games since it prevents players from playing together. Some people have a life and have to work for a living will the kiddies who play 18 hours a day level so fast that there is no hope of keeping up and thus the community suffers in the long run as they cannot adventure together for long since one or the other will fall behind.

The original AD&D had a nice simple rule set that was not set in stone as was a very good example of what a system should look like. Star Wars pen and paper was also a very good example (the original) as the skills were painfully simple and the #1 rule of the game was "rules do not matter...the story is all that matters so if it promotes the content of the story line and the players enjoy their self...go with it!"

Rolemaster was one of the most complicated rule sets I've GM'd and played and has the most wicked combat system ever devised by man...it could take literally hours to roll and generate a 20th level character from scratch but it was one hell of a game to play. Again though, the number one rule was "the rules do not matter and if it enhances the story line and the enjoyment of the players...go with it!"

Rules need to be kept at a minimum, enjoyment at a maximum. Players want to have fun and be with their friends not worry about limits or levels or trying to figure out skill trees or where to stuff those fluff points they earned.

As the old saying goes..."Keep it simple stupid!"

Dev

_________________
"So...if crazy people don't know their crazy...does that mean your only sane if your know your crazy?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 3:54 am 
Offline
Grand Master
Grand Master

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 8:54 am
Posts: 971
Levels don't necessarily need to be counterproductive to low level and high level players teaming up. It's all in the implementation.

I do agree that the implementation sucks in most MMORGs, at least in this regard. Dark Age of Camelot's leveling system was bad for this and was one of the reasons I left that game.

_________________
-= HellRazor =-
Shattered Sosaria is coming!
http://www.shatteredsosaria.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 6:03 am 
Offline
Grand Master
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 12:13 am
Posts: 414
Location: West Virginia, USA
I agree AD&D's method wouldn't fit into a computer game, I was just listed off the various types of systems I've personally played in. You'd be programming/scripting/something for about 10 years to get in all the possibilities for proficiencies, and still miss some, AND they'd still get mostly unused by today's typical gamer.

There's nothing complicated about skill/class advancement on my shard, the 'mix' took nothing in that area from AD&D other than the names of the classes and (some) abilities each one got. The skill advancement system is otherwise, 100% UO style. They can click the "Show caps" button on their skill menu if they can't handle remembering which skill has what cap :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 8:50 am 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 8:53 pm
Posts: 1864
Location: Hayward, CA
I see classes as an artificial barrier, though. More artificial than, say, a lower skill cap.

One idea I have been kicking around is to go with the traditional UO system, but make it slightly more complicated. I know complexity is a bad thing, but one idea is to have different skills use a different percentage of the total cap allotment. Therefore, for example, relatively useless skills would use only a quarter of a point of the cap, while the most commonly chosen skills might use three points towards the cap. What the cap is, then, would have to be decided.

Another option is to have additional skills that only become available after other skills are at a certain level. Say, for example, after smithing reaches level 20, some new skills become available, like "armor crafting" and "weapon crafting"... you could ignore them, or learn them in addition to regular smithing, but they would never be able to go higher than you regular smithing skill. Even then, more skills could become available, like, say, "sword crafting" at "weapon crafting" level 50, and then "katana crafting" at "sword crafting" level 50, and so on... allow a smith to become extremely specialized. Assuming you used the above system, the more specialized skills would likely use a much smaller percentage of the cap -- but if not, then the cap would simply have to be higher.

Finally, there is the idea of not having a cap, but forcing the turnover of players. I am HIGHLY in favor of this, as the only downside is the mentally built up by games where it is not a feature. I never cried when Mario lost his third life, and if players went into a game knowing that nothing they did would be permanent, except in the continuing story of the shard, they would not cry, either. This has way more benefits than just solving much of the advancement problem, because it also solves almost all of the economic problems and more. Not for everybody, of course. To pound home the idea that everybody WILL die, I am even in favor of aging. That way, nobody will not see death coming, and will not be so afraid to die. I am also thinking that skills and stats would make far less of a difference, as well -- they would go up quickly and not separate players as much.

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 9:45 am 
Offline
Grand Master
Grand Master

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 8:54 am
Posts: 971
Sydius wrote:
I see classes as an artificial barrier, though. More artificial than, say, a lower skill cap.

One idea I have been kicking around is to go with the traditional UO system, but make it slightly more complicated. I know complexity is a bad thing, but one idea is to have different skills use a different percentage of the total cap allotment. Therefore, for example, relatively useless skills would use only a quarter of a point of the cap, while the most commonly chosen skills might use three points towards the cap. What the cap is, then, would have to be decided.

Another option is to have additional skills that only become available after other skills are at a certain level. Say, for example, after smithing reaches level 20, some new skills become available, like "armor crafting" and "weapon crafting"... you could ignore them, or learn them in addition to regular smithing, but they would never be able to go higher than you regular smithing skill. Even then, more skills could become available, like, say, "sword crafting" at "weapon crafting" level 50, and then "katana crafting" at "sword crafting" level 50, and so on... allow a smith to become extremely specialized. Assuming you used the above system, the more specialized skills would likely use a much smaller percentage of the cap -- but if not, then the cap would simply have to be higher.

Finally, there is the idea of not having a cap, but forcing the turnover of players. I am HIGHLY in favor of this, as the only downside is the mentally built up by games where it is not a feature. I never cried when Mario lost his third life, and if players went into a game knowing that nothing they did would be permanent, except in the continuing story of the shard, they would not cry, either. This has way more benefits than just solving much of the advancement problem, because it also solves almost all of the economic problems and more. Not for everybody, of course. To pound home the idea that everybody WILL die, I am even in favor of aging. That way, nobody will not see death coming, and will not be so afraid to die. I am also thinking that skills and stats would make far less of a difference, as well -- they would go up quickly and not separate players as much.


Sort of along these lines, I've toyed with the idea of breaking skills up into Adventurer Skills, Craft Skills, and Hobby Skills. And having a seperate skill cap for each (except for Hobby skills, which would not count against the skill cat at all. These would be skills that aren't technical in nature and could reasonably be mastered as a hobby. Like fishing for instance).

_________________
-= HellRazor =-
Shattered Sosaria is coming!
http://www.shatteredsosaria.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 3:37 pm 
Offline
Slayer of Fools
Slayer of Fools
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 4:54 pm
Posts: 1289
RoseThorn wrote:
I agree AD&D's method wouldn't fit into a computer game, I was just listed off the various types of systems I've personally played in. You'd be programming/scripting/something for about 10 years to get in all the possibilities for proficiencies, and still miss some, AND they'd still get mostly unused by today's typical gamer.

There's nothing complicated about skill/class advancement on my shard, the 'mix' took nothing in that area from AD&D other than the names of the classes and (some) abilities each one got. The skill advancement system is otherwise, 100% UO style. They can click the "Show caps" button on their skill menu if they can't handle remembering which skill has what cap :P


Yeah, I don't like the way they've gotten overly complicated with the proficiencys and prestige classes and all that other bullshit (even in Neverwinter). Just seems to add a lot of confusion to what otherwise used to be a simple system. While I can't dispute the graphics are great and the interface is excellent (Bioware really is top notch) I just cannot get into the game, never even finished the first part of the original campaign.

Anyway, while I used to be violently against class and level based systems for computer games, I am sick of the everyone is 1 of 3 munchkin builds that work best....where's the variety? It is even less variety than a system with 6 canned classes. Your system actually starts to look more and more attractive. I've been leaning towards something like that myself, where every player can have every skill, but to different skillcaps per skill.

_________________
This space for rent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 10:26 pm 
Offline
Posting Whore
Posting Whore

Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Colorado Springs, Co.
How about a sort of comprimise.

A class based system broken down by major profession, lets use mage as an example. The player would be allowed to GM all mage related skills with the normal effort but non related mage skills would be capped at a lower skill level.

If this hypothetical mage were to try training in swords they would be limited to 50% or less even with magical bonuses. The same mage would however be allowed to learn cooking to 70-80% but not GM since crafts would be a seperate profession to which the reverse would apply.

A warrior would be the Grand mage spanker in full plate swinging a two handed mage slayer battle axe but only be able to train magery to 25% or what ever the designer determines to be fair and just.

A warrior who traines in Fencing alone would be allowed to not only GM but to actually go beyond with dedicated training just as the mage. This would allow players to still create a character that is fun while promoting classes and community interaction.

Hope that makes sense.

Dev

_________________
"So...if crazy people don't know their crazy...does that mean your only sane if your know your crazy?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 5:28 am 
Offline
Grand Master
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 12:13 am
Posts: 414
Location: West Virginia, USA
That's what I have Dev, except that certain skills aren't available to certain classes, crafting skills go to crafters only, magery to mages only, etc. The only exception to that would be Faith. It's the primary skill used by priests (pretend, magery for clerics) but it's also gm'able by any class.... the other classes just won't get any spells from it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 8:28 am 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 8:53 pm
Posts: 1864
Location: Hayward, CA
I would be okay with the class-based system where everybody can learn a little bit of everything, but with individual skill-caps based on class if, and only if, it is possible to change classes easily. The penalty could be something as simple as permanently losing all of the skill points above the new caps, so that if you switched between a GM mage to a warrior (with a cap of 25% on magery), that 75% of hard-earned magery would be lost forever.

That way newbies are not penalized as much for not knowing what they want to be, and even veteran players are not penalized as much for switching between skill-sharing classes if they are not sure how they want to specialize.

I think that is particularly key on a server that only allows for one character.

_________________
Blog: http://www.sydius.org
Web: http://www.sydius.net


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 9:54 am 
Offline
Slayer of Fools
Slayer of Fools
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 4:54 pm
Posts: 1289
Yeah, I am starting to think Rose's (and similar) system is not such a bad way to go at all.

_________________
This space for rent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:07 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 6:57 am
Posts: 472
I agree with 100% of everything that has been said in this thread so far.

_________________
-= Ho Eyo He Hum =-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 1:56 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 12:13 am
Posts: 414
Location: West Virginia, USA
lol Xuri, we've kinda said the opposites half of the time :p

I don't agree with switching classes, in fact we didn't even allow duel classed characters in our ad&d sessions way back when (that's when you stop being your old class and get a new one, then later when they're both equal level you can use either).

I start characters off as peasants on my shard. They can remain a peasant, with 35.0 skillcap in EVERY skill and the ability to use ANY weapon/armor at will, for as long as they like. When they're pretty sure what they want to be, they can .chooseclass and pick one. At that point skills/stats are reset to the base numbers for the class they chose, so they will lose whatever they learned. Consider it just a trial period to find their niche.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 4:40 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:59 am
Posts: 67
Location: Netherlands
RoseThorn wrote:
they can .chooseclass and pick one. At that point skills/stats are reset to the base numbers for the class they chose, so they will lose whatever they learned.


If that would happen every time you changed class for the skills that are affected by the new class you would have more flexibility, and no disadvantages.

_________________
What is, is
What exsists, exists


Greetz
Planet_Jeroen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 5:57 pm 
Offline
Slayer of Fools
Slayer of Fools
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 4:54 pm
Posts: 1289
Planet_Jeroen wrote:
RoseThorn wrote:
they can .chooseclass and pick one. At that point skills/stats are reset to the base numbers for the class they chose, so they will lose whatever they learned.


If that would happen every time you changed class for the skills that are affected by the new class you would have more flexibility, and no disadvantages.


Well that is pretty much the same as starting a new toon. Unless you are limiting players to 1 slot and 1 account not much point in it.

_________________
This space for rent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 9:32 pm 
Offline
Posting Whore
Posting Whore

Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Colorado Springs, Co.
Not really since you would retain your Stats which are harder to raise than most skills.

I like the trial period idea though most people in the EMU community are experienced and know what class they have in mind before they even log in. Though with custom classes and shards its nice to see whats going on before you commit to anything.

Dev

_________________
"So...if crazy people don't know their crazy...does that mean your only sane if your know your crazy?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2006 9:38 pm 
Offline
Grand Master
Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 12:13 am
Posts: 414
Location: West Virginia, USA
This is more or less a new game hehe, they won't know what's going on and won't know what class to pick. Hell half Tragena's staff doesn't know half our features yet :oops:

Me and DF were just talking about it yesterday, we keep finding spots on the map I've never seen and he forgot he built. It's kinda neat, like exploring a new world even though you built it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 5:32 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:59 am
Posts: 67
Location: Netherlands
Stormcrow wrote:
Planet_Jeroen wrote:
RoseThorn wrote:
they can .chooseclass and pick one. At that point skills/stats are reset to the base numbers for the class they chose, so they will lose whatever they learned.


If that would happen every time you changed class for the skills that are affected by the new class you would have more flexibility, and no disadvantages.


Well that is pretty much the same as starting a new toon. Unless you are limiting players to 1 slot and 1 account not much point in it.


Stats where already mentioned as one difference, the other is the stuff you already have. Your house. Those kind of things are lost when you choose a new character as well. On top of that, while I'm a developer now, I can learn how to become a farmer when I want. That would mean I loose my current developer skills over time.

Why limit to a one time choise, when you can offer freedom ?

_________________
What is, is
What exsists, exists


Greetz
Planet_Jeroen


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group