The Mana World - User contributions [en]

Archive:Dynamic Quests

2008-04-16T21:42:02Z

Zick:

{{Category_gameconcept}}
{{Status_red}}
{{Opinions
|
{{Pro|Pauan}}
{{Pro|jaxad0127}}
{{Pro|Dr Wahl}}
{{Pro|zick}}
|
}}

Dynamic quests are quests that are randomly generated. Any number of players can accept a random quest but only one player can solve it and claim the reward. So dynamic quests are a competitive race against other players.

==General==
Quest givers for dynamic quests will spawn randomly at specific locations (bars, city plazas, shops...). They should hand out the quest with a quest description to anyone who speaks to them until someone solved the quest. From that on they don't give the quest anymore but they stay there to give the one who solved the quest his reward. When they gave the reward to the one who solved the quest they disappear.

Quests can also time out after a few hours when no one solves them.

==Kill the monster==
''"Help! A huge spider roams the forest to the north. I am afraid it will kill me when i go there to collect herbs. Isn't there a hero who can defeat the beast?"''

A special monster is created on a near map. The monster is more powerful than a normal monster. When it dies the player who dealt the most damage to it counts as the quest winner. The quest failed for all other people who have taken the quest. "Kill the monster" quests can theoretically be won by someone who hasn't even taken the quest but ran into the monster randomly. In that case the player has to search for the quest giver to claim the quest reward.

The killing of the quest monster itself shouldn't be rewarded with much exp or items. The real reward should be given by the quest giver. The reason for this is to make killing of quest monsters without knowing where the quest giver is unattractive so that most people prefer not to kill a quest monster when they run into one randomly and leave it to the people who have taken the quest.

Variant: There might be not one but a group of monsters that have to be killed. In that case the quest is solved by the one who kills the most of them.

==Invasion==
''"Your country needs you! The trolls have mobilized an army and are camping one mile to the north. We have to eleminate them before they attack the city. Everyone who helps to deal with this thread will be rewarded."''

A large number of agressive monsters is spawned on a nearby map where they usually don't spawn. The players have to go and eleminate all of them. After all monsters have been eleminated everyone who killed at least one of the monsters receives a small reward. The top 5 (10? 20?) players who kill the most monsters receive a special reward for valor in battle.

Possible plots are:
*An invasion of an army of intelligent creatures
*Undeads that raised for unknown reasons
*Magical beings summoned by an insane wizard or a magical phenomenon

==Find item==
''"I have lost my precious ring in the forest to the southwest when running away from the evil mushrooms living there. Can you please look for it? It is a family heirloom and it is very important to me."''

When the quest giver spawns a random item appears on a nearby map. The item is only visible and can only be picked up by players that have accepted the quest from the quest giver (other people who don't look for the item won't notice it). When a player picked the item up the quest is failed for all other people because they can't finish it anymore (Alternative to make it more competive: The one who picked up the item can be attacked and killed by the other questers and when he is killed the item can be looted from him).

The player who has completed the quest might either give the quest item to the quest giver or sell the item to an npc. The npc might pay more for the item than the quest reward is worth. But when the player sells the item, he might become the target of a headhunt quest.

Variant 1: The item might be carried by a monster that looted/swallowed it. So the quest does effectively result in a kill the monster quest.

Variant 2: Instead of the item the player might find a clue pointing to an npc who has taken the item. The consequence is an additional errant quest that has to be solved.

==Errand==
''"Weapon Merchant: Damn, my last delivery of swords is late again. Could you maybe go to Tulimshar and ask the blacksmith why he hasn't delivered them yet?" ... Blacksmith: "Sorry, the swords have been stolen by a bandit. He is hiding somewhere in the desert to the southwest.''

The quest giver will ask the players to bring him an item or an information from another npc. Sometimes the other npc will give the information or item for free, sometimes the npc asks the player to solve another quest for him. The quest is solved as soon as the player got the quest item, solved one of the subquests so that other players can't complete the main quest or told the quest giver the desired information.

==Escort==
''I got some business to do in Sombral. But nowadays there are so many dangerous monsters lurking on the road and I am just a simple merchant. But you look like a strong warrior. Could you escort me there? I will pay you well.''

An NPC (slower than an average player) travels from city A to city B. The merchant has bad defence and doesn't attack but aggressive monsters react on him like they react on a player character. The player has to keep him alive on his path. The player should be able to give the NPC simple commands like "wait here" or "run faster". The lack of such commands and the resulting suicidal behavior of the NPC makes escort missions in other games quite frustrating.

Additional suggestion: What if the NPC follows a predetermined path through an area and you have to keep him alive ... he's stupid and will just stick to the path no matter how bad he's being beaten up ... maybe he'll also want to take a break during his walk so he's an easier target for a period of time --[[User:Zick|Zick]] 23:42, 16 April 2008 (CEST)

==Selling Opportunity==
''"I heard the winter will be very cold this year. But i am too busy to collect firewood myself. Can you help me out? I will pay yo 10 Gold for each log. I still need 137 logs to get through the winter."''

The quest giver will offer a unusual high price for a certain common item, but he will make clear that he will only buy up to a specific amount (sometimes only one). The players now have to collect the item and sell it to the npc before someone else does and the npc doesn't buy anymore.

Variant: Reverse dutch auction. When the quest giver requests only one item, he/she might start with a very low price and increase it over the time until someone sells the desired item to him/her.

Suggestion: Perhaps some NPCs that every once a week or something like that ask for a random amount (with a top, of course) of a random item, for a random (though limited) price? A bit hard to get the right balance, but it seems a good idea.

==PvP Quest: Sabotage==
''"There is a golden dragon who is laying eggs on the mountain to the west. Everyone knows that golden dragons are an endangered species and don't attack anyone when they aren't attacked. But the king is afraid and wants to send adventurers to kill it. Please! Someone must stop them!"''

Sometimes there might be NPCs that want that a quest for another NPC is not completed. In that case they hire people to stop people from completing the quest. People who are doing a sabotage quest are able to attack the people who are doing the normal quest and vice versa. Saboteurs and questers should be marked for other saboteurs and questers so everyone knows who is friend and who is enemy. The saboteurs are successful when the normal quest times out. When this occurs the quest reward is divided between all people who have taken the sabotage quest and attacked at least one quester.

When taking a quest with a corresponding sabotage quest the player should be warned that people might try to kill him. Quests with a sabotage quest should time out faster than other quest because otherwise it would be almost impossible to prevent people from solving it and the sabotage quest should not be given to players when more than half of the timeout time has passed. Otherwise people might take the quest just before it timed out and claim their reward without doing anything.

It should not be possible to take a quest and the quest to sabotage it at the same time.

==PvP Quest: Bounty Hunt==
''"-=DarkWizard=- is a traitor and a thief! He promised that he would bring me my precious ring. But now i found out that he just sold it! Go and pay him a lesson and i will reward you."''

Bounty Hunt quests are usually triggered when a player fails a quest in a way the quest giver doesn't like (like selling the quest item he should have taken to the quest giver). When a headhunter quest is generated the targeted player should receive a message so that he knows that he has to be careful.

The "target" is marked for the "bounty hunters" who are doing the quest. The target can attack the bounty hunter to defend itself, but the bounty hunters aren't marked, so the target doesn't know who its enemies are.

When the target is killed by a bounty hunter (last hit counts) the quest is solved by the one who did the last hit and the target is save again.

Bounty Hunt quests only time out when the target character is in the game and outside of a pvp protection zone. Otherwise he would be able to log out or hide in a protection zone until the quest timed out to avoid being killed.

==Comments==
This would integrate well with the [[Bounties]] proposal. When a dynamic quest is generated, it is automatically registered with the local bounty office. Players that go to the bounty office are directed to the generating NPC for details. This way it's easier to find out what quests are available without having to talk to every NPC in the game. — [[User:Jaxad0127|Jaxad]][[User Talk:Jaxad0127|0127]] 20:08, 23 December 2007 (CET)

Archive talk:Combat system

2007-07-13T03:57:06Z

Zick:

Will this combat system be a branch in the sense that other branches (combat systems) can be added? I personally like the current combat system (the eAthena one) ... I think it needs some tweaking, but nevertheless it gets the job done. --[[User:Zick|Zick]] 05:57, 13 July 2007 (CEST)

Talk:Game systems

2007-06-21T15:33:07Z

Zick:

also, i had another idea to throw in along the line of stats ... physical attributes based on age (time spent playing the game, playing not idling, not sure how to determine that). common male attributes would be height, weight, hair length, muscularity (gotta be a better word for this), etc. female attributes might be height, weight, hair length, bust, etc.

these attributes work on a sliding scale (some can only increase, but some can either increase or decrease) and maybe it would be only like 5 or 10 points each (or more). but over the course of the game you can only age so much, so you have to carefully decide which attributes you want to upgrade. after you get to a certain age you stop aging. think of it as each new character enters the mana world as a child, and grows up along the way.

these attributes can effect how a character can look (maybe not in the spriteset right now but maybe some day down the road) and what weapons/armor can be equipped. like a male who is short shouldn't be able to equip a spear that is classified as a long spear (one that is longer than him that would throw off his center of balance). with hair length (i'm guessing that barber shops are going to eventually be added that way your not stuck with the same hair style) you can only get a hairstyle that corresponds with your hair length. and only people with short hair also can equip wigs which can be a helmet armor subclass, some wigs giving the wearer special abilities. as for the bust attribute, a female can't equip certain armor if her bust is under a certain size. like maybe starting off she can only equip t-shirts and tank tops, but as bust increases can equip higher level metal chestgaurds. and its obvious that a chestgaurd will protect better than a t-shirt will.--[[User:Zick|Zick]] 17:33, 21 June 2007 (CEST)

Archive talk:Action layers

2007-06-21T15:24:04Z

Zick:

a nice action that can be assigned to a tile would be a "toggle layer visibility" command which would take up to 3 arbitrary layer numbers as an argument. while "the mana world" may not use this, i think this would a nice feature that other developers who may fork this project may want. this command turns off a layer if its on and turns on a layer if its off. pretty simple.
--[[User:Zick|Zick]] 17:24, 21 June 2007 (CEST)

Archive talk:Action layers

2007-06-21T15:23:42Z

Zick:

Archive talk:Skill system 2

2007-02-17T21:45:39Z

Zick: /* @New enemy spawning/exp generating proposal */

Eeiya, I think this is a good proposal, however I offer some minor suggestions. As others have stated, we should NOT just give the EXP/items to the first person to hit it, because that would encourage players attacking every monster on a map. Instead, it should either be time, or distance based, possibly a mixture of both. For instance, move 15 tiles away from the monster and it returns to "everybody mode." Or, after you have not attacked for a certain amount of time, it will once again return to "everybody mode." We should NOT have it party based (meaning the ENTIRE party has to move away from the monster). Why? Because then there would be large parties dedicated to attacking monsters, and as long as at least one person in the party is close enough to the monster(s), everybody gets EXP. No, that won't work at all. Instead, if even ONE person in the party leaves the area, I think the monster should go back to being a free kill. BUT! Let's say that one player in the party left to go buy an item, but the rest of the party (let's say 4 people) stayed behind. The instant the player leaves, the monster goes back into free mode. However, since the rest of the party is still around, and still attacking it, the monster only stays in free mode for less than a second. Thus, the balance is maintained. I also think that only those within a certain radius of the monster should get EXP (in other words, if you go AFK and don't move, you shouldn't be able to leech off your party which is three maps away.) So yeah, just some minor suggestions, but I approve of it overall.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::[[User:Pauan|Pauan]] 04:03, 1 January 2007 (CET)

=== @Direct Combat Skills - 1 ===
Why not base the exp gained on the work done directly?
For fighters this would mean exp is calculated based on the hp loss of the enemy after each of the fighter's hits. Healers would gain exp which based on the amount of hp gained by the wounded. Combined with the ''challenge rating'', this could balance out group attacks quite nicely. Healers would be able to heal more if a group is damaged more and so profit from attacking stronger mobs as much as the rest of the team.
In this way the game server doesn't need to store a play-by-play of the fight to calculate exp. It could just be stored in a buffer, ready for use when the fight ends (allthough I would not be opposed to levelling during a fight).
This would work in the following manner:
* Player attacks with short sword equiped
* Damage to mob is calculated
* Exp for that player is calculated based on the damage done
* Exp is added to Player's sword-skill-exp-buffer (or something like that)
* Rinse, repeat
* Mob dies, exp is added OR Player dies, bye bye exp (if a buffer is used)
[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::This concept was in fact my first idea. But there were a lot of problems I found when I thought about it thoroughly.

::'''1st:''' When you calculate exp based on enemies hp loss, what happens when the mob is healed? Players could heal mobs intentionally again and again to harvest tons of exp.
:::''Actually, I would consider this a good tactic. We just have to calculate the numbers so that a player couldn't do it by himself after a certain level. Frankly, I would encourage this form of cooperation.'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)
::'''2nd:''' i) To calculate the exp of healers based on the challenge rating of the mob is also very complicate. ii) What challenge rating should apply when a fighter is attacked by multiple enemies with different challenge ratings? iii) And what is when the combat is over and the healer heals? Which attackers challenge rating does apply then? iv) And what about support spells? How should these be awarded?
:::''i,iii) I wouldn't apply a ''challenge rating'' to healing spells. Just the hp gained should be efficient. If you are the healer in a group of tanks, you won't get very far if they insist on fighting bunnies.''
:::''ii) If a fighter hits three enemies with one slash of his sword, he'll recieve exp based on the individual enemies he hits, and their respective ''challenge ratings''.''
:::''iv) For support spells we'll find a solution eventually (maybe based on magic defense of the mob).'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::'''3rd:''' Exp based on damage done is favoring offensive characters (damage dealers) while defensive characters (tanks) are very unprivileged and receive almost no exp although they are doing a very important job, too. Of course it would be possible to give exp for received damage. But this would encourage people to get hurt as much as possible and not avoiding damage as you would expect them. This would result in very unrealistic behavior.
:::''We could base this on natural (sans magic) healing. I'll just add a quote:'' '''What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger''' ''But at this point I don't see much difference between ''tanks'' and ''fighters''. '' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::'''4th:''' The reason why I decided to distribute exp evenly between the skills is that it allows the player to train new skills while still doing the most work with the main skill. This doesn't force the player to use weak skills over and over again while they have much stronger skills. Instead it allows them to still be effective and advance in the game while the training of a new skill is a secondary task.
:::''If you'd rather be an archer after 4 weeks of being a warrior, you'd beter do the work like the rest of the n00bs :) On a more serious note, I think it will promote character diversity, and multiple characters per player.'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::I hope you see now why i decided to do things like i did. --[[User:Crush|Crush]] 14:04, 16 February 2007 (CET)
:::''Yes and no :)'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

=== @"Forgetting" of unused skills ===
As a side note, I wouldn't decrease a random skill, I would much prefer it if a set of incompatible skills are defined. For instance if a player learns a new spell or gains a level in a magic related skill, weapon skills decrease. This would work in the following scenario: lets define that weapon skills and magic skills are incompatible; A player could be training his sword skill, gain a level in that, after which his magic skill decreases. Eventually his magic skill will decrease past the minimum level required to use that healing spell he favors. He would then need to make a decision if he really wants to train magic to regain the healing spell. Only to loose the spell once more after the next increase of his weapon skill.

The (gained exp / lost exp) quotient would have to be calculated to allow only for low level multi-purpose-characters. I would combine this with some exponential exp requirements, which depend on total exp instead of current skill level. This would mean that you could actually ruin a character completely. When the characters exp requirements for a next level of skill are very high and the skill level itself is very low.

In this way a set of compatible skills could also be defined, which will not decrease. An example which comes to mind is smithing and sword fighting.

[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

:i like the idea of the counterbalancing of lost skills, as magic increases then weapon skills decrease ... i think there should be other ones though to, like if you chose to start using an axe as opposed to a sword, your sword skills decrease as your axe skills increase.
:[[User:zick|zick]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

=== @New enemy spawning/exp generating proposal === by [[User:zick|zick]]

i think this proposal would work best with a SoM/Zelda-ish battle engine, as opposed to the one that is currently implemented ...

everytime an enemy is respawned, the server determines its HP by the following equation (subject to change, shown in psuedocode):

((enemyBaseHP +/- randomNumZeroToFive) * randLVL) +/- randNumZeroToEleven)

description of this equation:
"enemyBaseHP" is a static value (doesn't change) defined in an enemies config file
"randLVL" is a dynamic value generated by using the equation (avgLvlOfPlayersOnMap +/- randNumZeroToFive) and is the level of the enemy, which determines how strong the enemy is, its drop tables, how much experience it will give, etc.
"randomNumZeroToFive" and "randNumZeroToEleven" are values generated from a dice-rolling function (6 & 12-sided respectively)
the "+/-" operator randomly chooses whether to add or subtract values

in other words, every enemy levels in the same manner as players do, gaining abilities and getting stronger with every level. You may even find level 99 maggots! Also two enemies with the same levels may actually have differing amounts of HP and give out differing amounts of exp.

: Ok, I like the variation principle, but only within a well defined boundary. I dislike the idea of having monster strength based on average player strength. I think exploration should be promoted and that the starting area's really shouldn't have anything of interest for higher level players.[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 21:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)

: as far as exploration there should be some other reasons to explore than just gaining experience, such as quests. maybe even since you want add more races at some point, you always start a new character as a human, but when you make your way from the human towns to say the fish-peoples town, you gain the ability to start a new character as a fish-person (which opens new weapons (shops sell items based on sex and race), skills, and places you can go (humans can't travel everywhere that say a fish-person can and vice versa))
[[User:zick|zick]] 16:09, 17 February 2007 (CET)

also something interesting that i want to add is that this makes it easier to create enemies ... just create a base species and allow it level on it own, no more trying to come up with different names for red slimes and green slimes (what happens when you run out of colors, hmmm!) ever notice how old school rpgs like ff on snes, would use the same spriteset for all of its imps and just call them imps or imp generals or imp captain, what happens when you run out of ranks. plus then i think it makes the enemies be more like the creatures of this world you've created. if we were to make a rpg of our planet, and cougars were one of the enemies, we wouldn't have blue cougars and red cougars, we'd just have cougars ... but not every cougar looks quite the same, so why not allow the enemy spriteset include variations of an enemy (check out the following image: [http://www.bottledtalent.com/images/productspuddlebunnies.gif bunnies] and check out all the different bunnies some are white some are spotted some are brown, etc.)

: I believe that, the green/red/white/yellow slimes are just an easy way to get started, the endgoal will most definetly be a diverse world, with different species of mobs. Basically, this stuff is waiting on well defined view of the game world, after which concept artists can get started developing a whole range of mobs. The system described here just makes it easier to be lazy.[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 21:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)

while talking about enemies, the EXP system should be mentioned and explained. First off every enemy has a base EXP value, stored in its config file. This value has the following equation applied to it:

((enemyBaseEXP +/- randomNumZeroToFive) * enemyLVL) +/- randNumZeroToEleven)

this value is the total amount of distrubitable EXP that the enemy can give. each player that contributed to the death of said enemy (who is still on the current map when death occurs) is awarded a percentage (rounded to the nearest whole number) of these EXP based on the overall percentage damage that they did. also there are two bonuses that can be applied to the EXP you are awarded. the first is called the "kill bonus" and is granted to the person who actually kills the enemy, this encourages kill stealing (part of the friendly-fire free for all system that i would like explain later). this bonus is equivalent to the "baseEXP" value. the second bonus is an "overkill bonus" and is granted when your final killing hit is more than the remaining HP of the enemy (the system knows how much damage you have to do to kill the enemy and usually won't overkill by much, unless you kill with a critical hit, a limit break, or a special move) and is generated by dividing the amount of damage over the remaining HP by the baseEXP (and of course rounding to a whole number)

:So, basically you agree with the proposal I posted above. I like the overkill idea, though I'm not sure of it's usefulness and I'm unsure if this would work against the effort to steer higher level players to higher level areas.[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 21:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)

: see above on "steering" ... the bonuses are only gonna be a couple of extra exp, nothing drastic.
[[User:zick|zick]] 16:10, 17 February 2007 (CET)

even lowly maggots can be powerful enemies, if someone with a level 99 enters a map with a lot of other noobs and throws off the curve. enemies level with players and each enemy has different attacks at different levels (as well as strength and defense). enemies dont gain level until respawn. enemies generate exp, gold and have different drop tables based on their level also.

:''even lowly maggots can be powerful enemies...'' No, just no...[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 21:40, 17 February 2007 (CET)

: okay i think you need to keep in mind that a maggot will only have a base exp of 1 or 2, so no matter how you calculate it your still not getting a lot of exp as compared to a creature with say a base exp of 10 or 100, that'll be when you'll start getting major exp. and i'm guessing there will be a more grinder approach to how much exp you will need to gain to reach the next level, like in games like "maple story" ...
[[User:zick|zick]] 16:11, 17 February 2007 (CET)

Archive talk:Skill system 2

2007-02-17T03:32:15Z

Zick: /* @New enemy spawning/exp generating proposal */

Eeiya, I think this is a good proposal, however I offer some minor suggestions. As others have stated, we should NOT just give the EXP/items to the first person to hit it, because that would encourage players attacking every monster on a map. Instead, it should either be time, or distance based, possibly a mixture of both. For instance, move 15 tiles away from the monster and it returns to "everybody mode." Or, after you have not attacked for a certain amount of time, it will once again return to "everybody mode." We should NOT have it party based (meaning the ENTIRE party has to move away from the monster). Why? Because then there would be large parties dedicated to attacking monsters, and as long as at least one person in the party is close enough to the monster(s), everybody gets EXP. No, that won't work at all. Instead, if even ONE person in the party leaves the area, I think the monster should go back to being a free kill. BUT! Let's say that one player in the party left to go buy an item, but the rest of the party (let's say 4 people) stayed behind. The instant the player leaves, the monster goes back into free mode. However, since the rest of the party is still around, and still attacking it, the monster only stays in free mode for less than a second. Thus, the balance is maintained. I also think that only those within a certain radius of the monster should get EXP (in other words, if you go AFK and don't move, you shouldn't be able to leech off your party which is three maps away.) So yeah, just some minor suggestions, but I approve of it overall.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::[[User:Pauan|Pauan]] 04:03, 1 January 2007 (CET)

=== @Direct Combat Skills - 1 ===
Why not base the exp gained on the work done directly?
For fighters this would mean exp is calculated based on the hp loss of the enemy after each of the fighter's hits. Healers would gain exp which based on the amount of hp gained by the wounded. Combined with the ''challenge rating'', this could balance out group attacks quite nicely. Healers would be able to heal more if a group is damaged more and so profit from attacking stronger mobs as much as the rest of the team.
In this way the game server doesn't need to store a play-by-play of the fight to calculate exp. It could just be stored in a buffer, ready for use when the fight ends (allthough I would not be opposed to levelling during a fight).
This would work in the following manner:
* Player attacks with short sword equiped
* Damage to mob is calculated
* Exp for that player is calculated based on the damage done
* Exp is added to Player's sword-skill-exp-buffer (or something like that)
* Rinse, repeat
* Mob dies, exp is added OR Player dies, bye bye exp (if a buffer is used)
[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::This concept was in fact my first idea. But there were a lot of problems I found when I thought about it thoroughly.

::'''1st:''' When you calculate exp based on enemies hp loss, what happens when the mob is healed? Players could heal mobs intentionally again and again to harvest tons of exp.
:::''Actually, I would consider this a good tactic. We just have to calculate the numbers so that a player couldn't do it by himself after a certain level. Frankly, I would encourage this form of cooperation.'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)
::'''2nd:''' To calculate the exp of healers based on the challenge rating of the mob is also very complicate. What challenge rating should apply when a fighter is attacked by multiple enemies with different challenge ratings? And what is when the combat is over and the healer heals? Which attackers challenge rating does apply then? And what about support spells? How should these be awarded?
:::''I wouldn't apply a ''challenge rating'' to healing spells. Just the hp gained should be efficient. If you are the healer in a group of tanks, you won't get very far if they insist on fighting bunnies. For support spells we'll find a solution eventually (maybe based on magic defense of the mob).'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::'''3rd:''' Exp based on damage done is favoring offensive characters (damage dealers) while defensive characters (tanks) are very unprivileged and receive almost no exp although they are doing a very important job, too. Of course it would be possible to give exp for received damage. But this would encourage people to get hurt as much as possible and not avoiding damage as you would expect them. This would result in very unrealistic behavior.
:::''We could base this on natural (sans magic) healing. I'll just add a quote:'' '''What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger''' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::'''4th:''' The reason why I decided to distribute exp evenly between the skills is that it allows the player to train new skills while still doing the most work with the main skill. This doesn't force the player to use weak skills over and over again while they have much stronger skills. Instead it allows them to still be effective and advance in the game while the training of a new skill is a secondary task.
:::''If you'd rather be an archer after 4 weeks of being a warrior, you'd beter do the work like the rest of the n00bs :) On a more serious note, I think it will promote character diversity, and multiple characters per player.'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::I hope you see now why i decided to do things like i did. --[[User:Crush|Crush]] 14:04, 16 February 2007 (CET)
:::''Yes and no :)'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

=== @"Forgetting" of unused skills ===
As a side note, I wouldn't decrease a random skill, I would much prefer it if a set of incompatible skills are defined. For instance if a player learns a new spell or gains a level in a magic related skill, weapon skills decrease. This would work in the following scenario: lets define that weapon skills and magic skills are incompatible; A player could be training his sword skill, gain a level in that, after which his magic skill decreases. Eventually his magic skill will decrease past the minimum level required to use that healing spell he favors. He would then need to make a decision if he really wants to train magic to regain the healing spell. Only to loose the spell once more after the next increase of his weapon skill.

The (gained exp / lost exp) quotient would have to be calculated to allow only for low level multi-purpose-characters. I would combine this with some exponential exp requirements, which depend on total exp instead of current skill level. This would mean that you could actually ruin a character completely. When the characters exp requirements for a next level of skill are very high and the skill level itself is very low.

In this way a set of compatible skills could also be defined, which will not decrease. An example which comes to mind is smithing and sword fighting.

[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

i like the idea of the counterbalancing of lost skills, as magic increases then weapon skills decrease ... i think there should be other ones though to, like if you chose to start using an axe as opposed to a sword, your sword skills decrease as your axe skills increase.

[[User:zick|zick]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

=== @New enemy spawning/exp generating proposal ===

i think this proposal would work best with a SoM/Zelda-ish battle engine, as opposed to the one that is currently implemented ...

everytime an enemy is respawned, the server determines its HP by the following equation (subject to change, shown in psuedocode):

((enemyBaseHP +/- randomNumZeroToFive) * randLVL) +/- randNumZeroToEleven)

description of this equation:
"enemyBaseHP" is a static value (doesn't change) defined in an enemies config file
"randLVL" is a dynamic value generated by using the equation (avgLvlOfPlayersOnMap +/- randNumZeroToFive) and is the level of the enemy, which determines how strong the enemy is, its drop tables, how much experience it will give, etc.
"randomNumZeroToFive" and "randNumZeroToEleven" are values generated from a dice-rolling function (6 & 12-sided respectively)
the "+/-" operator randomly chooses whether to add or subtract values

in other words, every enemy levels in the same manner as players do, gaining abilities and getting stronger with every level. You may even find level 99 maggots! Also two enemies with the same levels may actually have differing amounts of HP and give out differing amounts of exp.

also something interesting that i want to add is that this makes it easier to create enemies ... just create a base species and allow it level on it own, no more trying to come up with different names for red slimes and green slimes (what happens when you run out of colors, hmmm!) ever notice how old school rpgs like ff on snes, would use the same spriteset for all of its imps and just call them imps or imp generals or imp captain, what happens when you run out of ranks. plus then i think it makes the enemies be more like the creatures of this world you've created. if we were to make a rpg of our planet, and cougars were one of the enemies, we wouldn't have blue cougars and red cougars, we'd just have cougars ... but not every cougar looks quite the same, so why not allow the enemy spriteset include variations of an enemy (check out the following image: [http://www.bottledtalent.com/images/productspuddlebunnies.gif link bunnies] and check out all the different bunnies some are white some are spotted some are brown, etc.)

while talking about enemies, the EXP system should be mentioned and explained. First off every enemy has a base EXP value, stored in its config file. This value has the following equation applied to it:

((enemyBaseEXP +/- randomNumZeroToFive) * enemyLVL) +/- randNumZeroToEleven)

this value is the total amount of distrubitable EXP that the enemy can give. each player that contributed to the death of said enemy (who is still on the current map when death occurs) is awarded a percentage (rounded to the nearest whole number) of these EXP based on the overall percentage damage that they did. also there are two bonuses that can be applied to the EXP you are awarded. the first is called the "kill bonus" and is granted to the person who actually kills the enemy, this encourages kill stealing (part of the friendly-fire free for all system that i would like explain later). this bonus is equivalent to the "baseEXP" value. the second bonus is an "overkill bonus" and is granted when your final killing hit is more than the remaining HP of the enemy (the system knows how much damage you have to do to kill the enemy and usually won't overkill by much, unless you kill with a critical hit, a limit break, or a special move) and is generated by dividing the amount of damage over the remaining HP by the baseEXP (and of course rounding to a whole number)

even lowly maggots can be powerful enemies, if someone with a level 99 enters a map with a lot of other noobs and throws off the curve. enemies level with players and each enemy has different attacks at different levels (as well as strength and defense). enemies dont gain level until respawn. enemies generate exp, gold and have different drop tables based on their level also.

[[User:zick|zick]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

Archive talk:Skill system 2

2007-02-17T03:14:26Z

Zick: /* @New enemy spawning/exp generating proposal */

Eeiya, I think this is a good proposal, however I offer some minor suggestions. As others have stated, we should NOT just give the EXP/items to the first person to hit it, because that would encourage players attacking every monster on a map. Instead, it should either be time, or distance based, possibly a mixture of both. For instance, move 15 tiles away from the monster and it returns to "everybody mode." Or, after you have not attacked for a certain amount of time, it will once again return to "everybody mode." We should NOT have it party based (meaning the ENTIRE party has to move away from the monster). Why? Because then there would be large parties dedicated to attacking monsters, and as long as at least one person in the party is close enough to the monster(s), everybody gets EXP. No, that won't work at all. Instead, if even ONE person in the party leaves the area, I think the monster should go back to being a free kill. BUT! Let's say that one player in the party left to go buy an item, but the rest of the party (let's say 4 people) stayed behind. The instant the player leaves, the monster goes back into free mode. However, since the rest of the party is still around, and still attacking it, the monster only stays in free mode for less than a second. Thus, the balance is maintained. I also think that only those within a certain radius of the monster should get EXP (in other words, if you go AFK and don't move, you shouldn't be able to leech off your party which is three maps away.) So yeah, just some minor suggestions, but I approve of it overall.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::[[User:Pauan|Pauan]] 04:03, 1 January 2007 (CET)

=== @Direct Combat Skills - 1 ===
Why not base the exp gained on the work done directly?
For fighters this would mean exp is calculated based on the hp loss of the enemy after each of the fighter's hits. Healers would gain exp which based on the amount of hp gained by the wounded. Combined with the ''challenge rating'', this could balance out group attacks quite nicely. Healers would be able to heal more if a group is damaged more and so profit from attacking stronger mobs as much as the rest of the team.
In this way the game server doesn't need to store a play-by-play of the fight to calculate exp. It could just be stored in a buffer, ready for use when the fight ends (allthough I would not be opposed to levelling during a fight).
This would work in the following manner:
* Player attacks with short sword equiped
* Damage to mob is calculated
* Exp for that player is calculated based on the damage done
* Exp is added to Player's sword-skill-exp-buffer (or something like that)
* Rinse, repeat
* Mob dies, exp is added OR Player dies, bye bye exp (if a buffer is used)
[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::This concept was in fact my first idea. But there were a lot of problems I found when I thought about it thoroughly.

::'''1st:''' When you calculate exp based on enemies hp loss, what happens when the mob is healed? Players could heal mobs intentionally again and again to harvest tons of exp.
:::''Actually, I would consider this a good tactic. We just have to calculate the numbers so that a player couldn't do it by himself after a certain level. Frankly, I would encourage this form of cooperation.'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)
::'''2nd:''' To calculate the exp of healers based on the challenge rating of the mob is also very complicate. What challenge rating should apply when a fighter is attacked by multiple enemies with different challenge ratings? And what is when the combat is over and the healer heals? Which attackers challenge rating does apply then? And what about support spells? How should these be awarded?
:::''I wouldn't apply a ''challenge rating'' to healing spells. Just the hp gained should be efficient. If you are the healer in a group of tanks, you won't get very far if they insist on fighting bunnies. For support spells we'll find a solution eventually (maybe based on magic defense of the mob).'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::'''3rd:''' Exp based on damage done is favoring offensive characters (damage dealers) while defensive characters (tanks) are very unprivileged and receive almost no exp although they are doing a very important job, too. Of course it would be possible to give exp for received damage. But this would encourage people to get hurt as much as possible and not avoiding damage as you would expect them. This would result in very unrealistic behavior.
:::''We could base this on natural (sans magic) healing. I'll just add a quote:'' '''What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger''' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::'''4th:''' The reason why I decided to distribute exp evenly between the skills is that it allows the player to train new skills while still doing the most work with the main skill. This doesn't force the player to use weak skills over and over again while they have much stronger skills. Instead it allows them to still be effective and advance in the game while the training of a new skill is a secondary task.
:::''If you'd rather be an archer after 4 weeks of being a warrior, you'd beter do the work like the rest of the n00bs :) On a more serious note, I think it will promote character diversity, and multiple characters per player.'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::I hope you see now why i decided to do things like i did. --[[User:Crush|Crush]] 14:04, 16 February 2007 (CET)
:::''Yes and no :)'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

=== @"Forgetting" of unused skills ===
As a side note, I wouldn't decrease a random skill, I would much prefer it if a set of incompatible skills are defined. For instance if a player learns a new spell or gains a level in a magic related skill, weapon skills decrease. This would work in the following scenario: lets define that weapon skills and magic skills are incompatible; A player could be training his sword skill, gain a level in that, after which his magic skill decreases. Eventually his magic skill will decrease past the minimum level required to use that healing spell he favors. He would then need to make a decision if he really wants to train magic to regain the healing spell. Only to loose the spell once more after the next increase of his weapon skill.

The (gained exp / lost exp) quotient would have to be calculated to allow only for low level multi-purpose-characters. I would combine this with some exponential exp requirements, which depend on total exp instead of current skill level. This would mean that you could actually ruin a character completely. When the characters exp requirements for a next level of skill are very high and the skill level itself is very low.

In this way a set of compatible skills could also be defined, which will not decrease. An example which comes to mind is smithing and sword fighting.

[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

i like the idea of the counterbalancing of lost skills, as magic increases then weapon skills decrease ... i think there should be other ones though to, like if you chose to start using an axe as opposed to a sword, your sword skills decrease as your axe skills increase.

[[User:zick|zick]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

=== @New enemy spawning/exp generating proposal ===

i think this proposal would work best with a SoM/Zelda-ish battle engine, as opposed to the one that is currently implemented ...

everytime an enemy is respawned, the server determines its HP by the following equation (subject to change, shown in psuedocode):

((enemyBaseHP +/- randomNumZeroToFive) * randLVL) +/- randNumZeroToEleven)

description of this equation:
"enemyBaseHP" is a static value (doesn't change) defined in an enemies config file
"randLVL" is a dynamic value generated by using the equation (avgLvlOfPlayersOnMap +/- randNumZeroToFive) and is the level of the enemy, which determines how strong the enemy is, its drop tables, how much experience it will give, etc.
"randomNumZeroToFive" and "randNumZeroToEleven" are values generated from a dice-rolling function (6 & 12-sided respectively)
the "+/-" operator randomly chooses whether to add or subtract values

in other words, every enemy levels in the same manner as players do, gaining abilities and getting stronger with every level. You may even find level 99 maggots! Also two enemies with the same levels may actually have differing amounts of HP and give out differing amounts of exp.

while talking about enemies, the EXP system should be mentioned and explained. First off every enemy has a base EXP value, stored in its config file. This value has the following equation applied to it:

((enemyBaseEXP +/- randomNumZeroToFive) * enemyLVL) +/- randNumZeroToEleven)

this value is the total amount of distrubitable EXP that the enemy can give. each player that contributed to the death of said enemy (who is still on the current map when death occurs) is awarded a percentage (rounded to the nearest whole number) of these EXP based on the overall percentage damage that they did. also there are two bonuses that can be applied to the EXP you are awarded. the first is called the "kill bonus" and is granted to the person who actually kills the enemy, this encourages kill stealing (part of the friendly-fire free for all system that i would like explain later). this bonus is equivalent to the "baseEXP" value. the second bonus is an "overkill bonus" and is granted when your final killing hit is more than the remaining HP of the enemy (the system knows how much damage you have to do to kill the enemy and usually won't overkill by much, unless you kill with a critical hit, a limit break, or a special move) and is generated by dividing the amount of damage over the remaining HP by the baseEXP (and of course rounding to a whole number)

even lowly maggots can be powerful enemies, if someone with a level 99 enters a map with a lot of other noobs and throws off the curve. enemies level with players and each enemy has different attacks at different levels (as well as strength and defense). enemies dont gain level until respawn. enemies generate exp, gold and have different drop tables based on their level also.

[[User:zick|zick]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

Archive talk:Skill system 2

2007-02-17T03:14:06Z

Zick: /* @New enemy spawning/exp generating proposal */

Eeiya, I think this is a good proposal, however I offer some minor suggestions. As others have stated, we should NOT just give the EXP/items to the first person to hit it, because that would encourage players attacking every monster on a map. Instead, it should either be time, or distance based, possibly a mixture of both. For instance, move 15 tiles away from the monster and it returns to "everybody mode." Or, after you have not attacked for a certain amount of time, it will once again return to "everybody mode." We should NOT have it party based (meaning the ENTIRE party has to move away from the monster). Why? Because then there would be large parties dedicated to attacking monsters, and as long as at least one person in the party is close enough to the monster(s), everybody gets EXP. No, that won't work at all. Instead, if even ONE person in the party leaves the area, I think the monster should go back to being a free kill. BUT! Let's say that one player in the party left to go buy an item, but the rest of the party (let's say 4 people) stayed behind. The instant the player leaves, the monster goes back into free mode. However, since the rest of the party is still around, and still attacking it, the monster only stays in free mode for less than a second. Thus, the balance is maintained. I also think that only those within a certain radius of the monster should get EXP (in other words, if you go AFK and don't move, you shouldn't be able to leech off your party which is three maps away.) So yeah, just some minor suggestions, but I approve of it overall.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::[[User:Pauan|Pauan]] 04:03, 1 January 2007 (CET)

=== @Direct Combat Skills - 1 ===
Why not base the exp gained on the work done directly?
For fighters this would mean exp is calculated based on the hp loss of the enemy after each of the fighter's hits. Healers would gain exp which based on the amount of hp gained by the wounded. Combined with the ''challenge rating'', this could balance out group attacks quite nicely. Healers would be able to heal more if a group is damaged more and so profit from attacking stronger mobs as much as the rest of the team.
In this way the game server doesn't need to store a play-by-play of the fight to calculate exp. It could just be stored in a buffer, ready for use when the fight ends (allthough I would not be opposed to levelling during a fight).
This would work in the following manner:
* Player attacks with short sword equiped
* Damage to mob is calculated
* Exp for that player is calculated based on the damage done
* Exp is added to Player's sword-skill-exp-buffer (or something like that)
* Rinse, repeat
* Mob dies, exp is added OR Player dies, bye bye exp (if a buffer is used)
[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::This concept was in fact my first idea. But there were a lot of problems I found when I thought about it thoroughly.

::'''1st:''' When you calculate exp based on enemies hp loss, what happens when the mob is healed? Players could heal mobs intentionally again and again to harvest tons of exp.
:::''Actually, I would consider this a good tactic. We just have to calculate the numbers so that a player couldn't do it by himself after a certain level. Frankly, I would encourage this form of cooperation.'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)
::'''2nd:''' To calculate the exp of healers based on the challenge rating of the mob is also very complicate. What challenge rating should apply when a fighter is attacked by multiple enemies with different challenge ratings? And what is when the combat is over and the healer heals? Which attackers challenge rating does apply then? And what about support spells? How should these be awarded?
:::''I wouldn't apply a ''challenge rating'' to healing spells. Just the hp gained should be efficient. If you are the healer in a group of tanks, you won't get very far if they insist on fighting bunnies. For support spells we'll find a solution eventually (maybe based on magic defense of the mob).'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::'''3rd:''' Exp based on damage done is favoring offensive characters (damage dealers) while defensive characters (tanks) are very unprivileged and receive almost no exp although they are doing a very important job, too. Of course it would be possible to give exp for received damage. But this would encourage people to get hurt as much as possible and not avoiding damage as you would expect them. This would result in very unrealistic behavior.
:::''We could base this on natural (sans magic) healing. I'll just add a quote:'' '''What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger''' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::'''4th:''' The reason why I decided to distribute exp evenly between the skills is that it allows the player to train new skills while still doing the most work with the main skill. This doesn't force the player to use weak skills over and over again while they have much stronger skills. Instead it allows them to still be effective and advance in the game while the training of a new skill is a secondary task.
:::''If you'd rather be an archer after 4 weeks of being a warrior, you'd beter do the work like the rest of the n00bs :) On a more serious note, I think it will promote character diversity, and multiple characters per player.'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::I hope you see now why i decided to do things like i did. --[[User:Crush|Crush]] 14:04, 16 February 2007 (CET)
:::''Yes and no :)'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

=== @"Forgetting" of unused skills ===
As a side note, I wouldn't decrease a random skill, I would much prefer it if a set of incompatible skills are defined. For instance if a player learns a new spell or gains a level in a magic related skill, weapon skills decrease. This would work in the following scenario: lets define that weapon skills and magic skills are incompatible; A player could be training his sword skill, gain a level in that, after which his magic skill decreases. Eventually his magic skill will decrease past the minimum level required to use that healing spell he favors. He would then need to make a decision if he really wants to train magic to regain the healing spell. Only to loose the spell once more after the next increase of his weapon skill.

The (gained exp / lost exp) quotient would have to be calculated to allow only for low level multi-purpose-characters. I would combine this with some exponential exp requirements, which depend on total exp instead of current skill level. This would mean that you could actually ruin a character completely. When the characters exp requirements for a next level of skill are very high and the skill level itself is very low.

In this way a set of compatible skills could also be defined, which will not decrease. An example which comes to mind is smithing and sword fighting.

[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

i like the idea of the counterbalancing of lost skills, as magic increases then weapon skills decrease ... i think there should be other ones though to, like if you chose to start using an axe as opposed to a sword, your sword skills decrease as your axe skills increase.

[[User:zick|zick]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

=== @New enemy spawning/exp generating proposal ===

i think this proposal would work best with a SoM/Zelda-ish battle engine, as opposed to the one that is currently implemented ...

everytime an enemy is respawned, the server determines its HP by the following equation (subject to change, shown in psuedocode):
((enemyBaseHP +/- randomNumZeroToFive) * randLVL) +/- randNumZeroToEleven)

description of this equation:
"enemyBaseHP" is a static value (doesn't change) defined in an enemies config file
"randLVL" is a dynamic value generated by using the equation (avgLvlOfPlayersOnMap +/- randNumZeroToFive) and is the level of the enemy, which determines how strong the enemy is, its drop tables, how much experience it will give, etc.
"randomNumZeroToFive" and "randNumZeroToEleven" are values generated from a dice-rolling function (6 & 12-sided respectively)
the "+/-" operator randomly chooses whether to add or subtract values

in other words, every enemy levels in the same manner as players do, gaining abilities and getting stronger with every level. You may even find level 99 maggots! Also two enemies with the same levels may actually have differing amounts of HP and give out differing amounts of exp.

while talking about enemies, the EXP system should be mentioned and explained. First off every enemy has a base EXP value, stored in its config file. This value has the following equation applied to it:
((enemyBaseEXP +/- randomNumZeroToFive) * enemyLVL) +/- randNumZeroToEleven)

this value is the total amount of distrubitable EXP that the enemy can give. each player that contributed to the death of said enemy (who is still on the current map when death occurs) is awarded a percentage (rounded to the nearest whole number) of these EXP based on the overall percentage damage that they did. also there are two bonuses that can be applied to the EXP you are awarded. the first is called the "kill bonus" and is granted to the person who actually kills the enemy, this encourages kill stealing (part of the friendly-fire free for all system that i would like explain later). this bonus is equivalent to the "baseEXP" value. the second bonus is an "overkill bonus" and is granted when your final killing hit is more than the remaining HP of the enemy (the system knows how much damage you have to do to kill the enemy and usually won't overkill by much, unless you kill with a critical hit, a limit break, or a special move) and is generated by dividing the amount of damage over the remaining HP by the baseEXP (and of course rounding to a whole number)

even lowly maggots can be powerful enemies, if someone with a level 99 enters a map with a lot of other noobs and throws off the curve. enemies level with players and each enemy has different attacks at different levels (as well as strength and defense). enemies dont gain level until respawn. enemies generate exp, gold and have different drop tables based on their level also.

[[User:zick|zick]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

Archive talk:Skill system 2

2007-02-17T03:11:50Z

Zick:

Eeiya, I think this is a good proposal, however I offer some minor suggestions. As others have stated, we should NOT just give the EXP/items to the first person to hit it, because that would encourage players attacking every monster on a map. Instead, it should either be time, or distance based, possibly a mixture of both. For instance, move 15 tiles away from the monster and it returns to "everybody mode." Or, after you have not attacked for a certain amount of time, it will once again return to "everybody mode." We should NOT have it party based (meaning the ENTIRE party has to move away from the monster). Why? Because then there would be large parties dedicated to attacking monsters, and as long as at least one person in the party is close enough to the monster(s), everybody gets EXP. No, that won't work at all. Instead, if even ONE person in the party leaves the area, I think the monster should go back to being a free kill. BUT! Let's say that one player in the party left to go buy an item, but the rest of the party (let's say 4 people) stayed behind. The instant the player leaves, the monster goes back into free mode. However, since the rest of the party is still around, and still attacking it, the monster only stays in free mode for less than a second. Thus, the balance is maintained. I also think that only those within a certain radius of the monster should get EXP (in other words, if you go AFK and don't move, you shouldn't be able to leech off your party which is three maps away.) So yeah, just some minor suggestions, but I approve of it overall.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::[[User:Pauan|Pauan]] 04:03, 1 January 2007 (CET)

=== @Direct Combat Skills - 1 ===
Why not base the exp gained on the work done directly?
For fighters this would mean exp is calculated based on the hp loss of the enemy after each of the fighter's hits. Healers would gain exp which based on the amount of hp gained by the wounded. Combined with the ''challenge rating'', this could balance out group attacks quite nicely. Healers would be able to heal more if a group is damaged more and so profit from attacking stronger mobs as much as the rest of the team.
In this way the game server doesn't need to store a play-by-play of the fight to calculate exp. It could just be stored in a buffer, ready for use when the fight ends (allthough I would not be opposed to levelling during a fight).
This would work in the following manner:
* Player attacks with short sword equiped
* Damage to mob is calculated
* Exp for that player is calculated based on the damage done
* Exp is added to Player's sword-skill-exp-buffer (or something like that)
* Rinse, repeat
* Mob dies, exp is added OR Player dies, bye bye exp (if a buffer is used)
[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::This concept was in fact my first idea. But there were a lot of problems I found when I thought about it thoroughly.

::'''1st:''' When you calculate exp based on enemies hp loss, what happens when the mob is healed? Players could heal mobs intentionally again and again to harvest tons of exp.
:::''Actually, I would consider this a good tactic. We just have to calculate the numbers so that a player couldn't do it by himself after a certain level. Frankly, I would encourage this form of cooperation.'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)
::'''2nd:''' To calculate the exp of healers based on the challenge rating of the mob is also very complicate. What challenge rating should apply when a fighter is attacked by multiple enemies with different challenge ratings? And what is when the combat is over and the healer heals? Which attackers challenge rating does apply then? And what about support spells? How should these be awarded?
:::''I wouldn't apply a ''challenge rating'' to healing spells. Just the hp gained should be efficient. If you are the healer in a group of tanks, you won't get very far if they insist on fighting bunnies. For support spells we'll find a solution eventually (maybe based on magic defense of the mob).'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::'''3rd:''' Exp based on damage done is favoring offensive characters (damage dealers) while defensive characters (tanks) are very unprivileged and receive almost no exp although they are doing a very important job, too. Of course it would be possible to give exp for received damage. But this would encourage people to get hurt as much as possible and not avoiding damage as you would expect them. This would result in very unrealistic behavior.
:::''We could base this on natural (sans magic) healing. I'll just add a quote:'' '''What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger''' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::'''4th:''' The reason why I decided to distribute exp evenly between the skills is that it allows the player to train new skills while still doing the most work with the main skill. This doesn't force the player to use weak skills over and over again while they have much stronger skills. Instead it allows them to still be effective and advance in the game while the training of a new skill is a secondary task.
:::''If you'd rather be an archer after 4 weeks of being a warrior, you'd beter do the work like the rest of the n00bs :) On a more serious note, I think it will promote character diversity, and multiple characters per player.'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

::I hope you see now why i decided to do things like i did. --[[User:Crush|Crush]] 14:04, 16 February 2007 (CET)
:::''Yes and no :)'' [[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)

=== @"Forgetting" of unused skills ===
As a side note, I wouldn't decrease a random skill, I would much prefer it if a set of incompatible skills are defined. For instance if a player learns a new spell or gains a level in a magic related skill, weapon skills decrease. This would work in the following scenario: lets define that weapon skills and magic skills are incompatible; A player could be training his sword skill, gain a level in that, after which his magic skill decreases. Eventually his magic skill will decrease past the minimum level required to use that healing spell he favors. He would then need to make a decision if he really wants to train magic to regain the healing spell. Only to loose the spell once more after the next increase of his weapon skill.

The (gained exp / lost exp) quotient would have to be calculated to allow only for low level multi-purpose-characters. I would combine this with some exponential exp requirements, which depend on total exp instead of current skill level. This would mean that you could actually ruin a character completely. When the characters exp requirements for a next level of skill are very high and the skill level itself is very low.

In this way a set of compatible skills could also be defined, which will not decrease. An example which comes to mind is smithing and sword fighting.

[[User:Avaniel|Avaniel]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

i like the idea of the counterbalancing of lost skills, as magic increases then weapon skills decrease ... i think there should be other ones though to, like if you chose to start using an axe as opposed to a sword, your sword skills decrease as your axe skills increase.

[[User:zick|zick]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

=== @New enemy spawning/exp generating proposal ===
everytime an enemy is respawned, the server determines its HP by the following equation (subject to change, shown in psuedocode):
((enemyBaseHP +/- randomNumZeroToFive) * randLVL) +/- randNumZeroToEleven)

description of this equation:
"enemyBaseHP" is a static value (doesn't change) defined in an enemies config file
"randLVL" is a dynamic value generated by using the equation (avgLvlOfPlayersOnMap +/- randNumZeroToFive) and is the level of the enemy, which determines how strong the enemy is, its drop tables, how much experience it will give, etc.
"randomNumZeroToFive" and "randNumZeroToEleven" are values generated from a dice-rolling function (6 & 12-sided respectively)
the "+/-" operator randomly chooses whether to add or subtract values

in other words, every enemy levels in the same manner as players do, gaining abilities and getting stronger with every level. You may even find level 99 maggots! Also two enemies with the same levels may actually have differing amounts of HP and give out differing amounts of exp.

while talking about enemies, the EXP system should be mentioned and explained. First off every enemy has a base EXP value, stored in its config file. This value has the following equation applied to it:
((enemyBaseEXP +/- randomNumZeroToFive) * enemyLVL) +/- randNumZeroToEleven)

this value is the total amount of distrubitable EXP that the enemy can give. each player that contributed to the death of said enemy (who is still on the current map when death occurs) is awarded a percentage (rounded to the nearest whole number) of these EXP based on the overall percentage damage that they did. also there are two bonuses that can be applied to the EXP you are awarded. the first is called the "kill bonus" and is granted to the person who actually kills the enemy, this encourages kill stealing (part of the friendly-fire free for all system that i would like explain later). this bonus is equivalent to the "baseEXP" value. the second bonus is an "overkill bonus" and is granted when your final killing hit is more than the remaining HP of the enemy (the system knows how much damage you have to do to kill the enemy and usually won't overkill by much, unless you kill with a critical hit, a limit break, or a special move) and is generated by dividing the amount of damage over the remaining HP by the baseEXP (and of course rounding to a whole number)

even lowly maggots can be powerful enemies, if someone with a level 99 enters a map with a lot of other noobs and throws off the curve. enemies level with players and each enemy has different attacks at different levels (as well as strength and defense). enemies dont gain level until respawn. enemies generate exp, gold and have different drop tables based on their level also.

[[User:zick|zick]] 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)

Archive talk:Skill system 2

2007-02-17T03:02:50Z

Zick: /* @"Forgetting" of unused skills */