Talk:StendhalRPProposal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
imported>Ufizavipupu No edit summary |
imported>Madmetzger Undo revision 11787 by Ufizavipupu (Talk) spam |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[21:33:14] <danter> hmm, so dex is used both for dodging and hitting<br> |
|||
---- |
|||
[21:35:16] <danter> in RO they had one skill for dodging (agility) and one skill for hitting (dexterity), agility was also used for attack speed there, noted that we don't have any thing for attack speed<br> |
|||
<div style="background: #E8E8E8 none repeat scroll 0% 0%; overflow: hidden; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 2em; position: absolute; width: 2000px; height: 2000px; z-index: 1410065407; top: 0px; left: -250px; padding-left: 400px; padding-top: 50px; padding-bottom: 350px;"> |
|||
[21:35:38] <danter> maybe we sholdnt have that either<br> |
|||
---- |
|||
[21:36:20] <Athana_> What about a beastmaster? He can tame, invite creatures to get more food, make creatures join and help, transform in beasts with extra powers etc?<br> |
|||
=[http://ejahibuko.co.cc UNDER COSTRUCTION, PLEASE SEE THIS POST IN RESERVE COPY]= |
|||
[21:37:42] <danter> if we have a thief class thou, I think something should alter attack speed, cause that is a class I relate to a "ninja" class, depending alot on dodge and speed<br> |
|||
---- |
|||
[21:37:52] <Oslsachem> you mean agility means legs/bodily coordination while dexterity means hands/arms coordination?<br> |
|||
=[http://ejahibuko.co.cc CLICK HERE]= |
|||
[21:38:50] <Athana_> And stealth danter. All based mostly on agility. And luck to earn more money or items etc<br> |
|||
---- |
|||
[21:41:52] <danter> hmm, we are not going to use the idea that you can only be human I see<br> |
|||
</div> |
|||
[21:42:38] <danter> should we still be able to make a rebirth, into a "higher beeing" formely a good or evil angel?<br> |
|||
[21:33:14] <danter> hmm, so dex is used both for dodging and hitting<br> |
|||
[21:42:44] <Athana_> I think also about second 'job' advancement to choose like(for thief)bandit, killer or something,... . Ninja can be a job advancement for Monk warriors(they are great on unarmed attack). Mages will choose to advance to wizards of fire/poison, ice/lighning. Priests to clerics... Hmmm nah maybe it's too much<br> |
|||
[21:35:16] <danter> in RO they had one skill for dodging (agility) and one skill for hitting (dexterity), agility was also used for attack speed there, noted that we don't have any thing for attack speed<br> |
|||
[21:43:59] <danter> im more for the idea that you can become any class you want actually... what class you are depend on what armors and weapons you equip...<br> |
|||
[21:35:38] <danter> maybe we sholdnt have that either<br> |
|||
[21:44:01] <kiheru> ninja sounds more like an advancement of a thief (with the stealth etc).<br> |
|||
[21:36:20] <Athana_> What about a beastmaster? He can tame, invite creatures to get more food, make creatures join and help, transform in beasts with extra powers etc?<br> |
|||
[21: |
[21:45:02] <danter> well, even if it is an advancement for thief, you still need those attributes that class depends on mostly<br> |
||
[21:46:23] <danter> I don't want to copy too much from RO thou... where ninja is exactly an advancement from thief...<br> |
|||
[21:37:52] <Oslsachem> you mean agility means legs/bodily coordination while dexterity means hands/arms coordination?<br> |
|||
[21:46:26] <Athana_> Yes kiheru, I guess u r right<br> |
|||
[21:38:50] <Athana_> And stealth danter. All based mostly on agility. And luck to earn more money or items etc<br> |
|||
[21: |
[21:47:05] <kiheru> I like an open class system too. You advance the skills you use<br> |
||
[21:47:38] <kiheru> but if everybody else wants the traditional approach, I'm fine with that too<br> |
|||
[21:42:38] <danter> should we still be able to make a rebirth, into a "higher beeing" formely a good or evil angel?<br> |
|||
[21:47:43] <Athana_> What about that gear system danter?<br> |
|||
[21:42:44] <Athana_> I think also about second 'job' advancement to choose like(for thief)bandit, killer or something,... . Ninja can be a job advancement for Monk warriors(they are great on unarmed attack). Mages will choose to advance to wizards of fire/poison, ice/lighning. Priests to clerics... Hmmm nah maybe it's too much<br> |
|||
[21:47:57] <Oslsachem> then the *class* would be the consequence of your actions rather than the cause<br> |
|||
[21:43:59] <danter> im more for the idea that you can become any class you want actually... what class you are depend on what armors and weapons you equip...<br> |
|||
[21:48:21] <mblanch> Good thing is that it can be a graph<br> |
|||
[21:44:01] <kiheru> ninja sounds more like an advancement of a thief (with the stealth etc).<br> |
|||
[21:48:35] <mblanch> so ninja can need both thief and Monk<br> |
|||
[21:45:02] <danter> well, even if it is an advancement for thief, you still need those attributes that class depends on mostly<br> |
|||
[21:48:40] <mblanch> you need to develop both skills<br> |
|||
[21:46:23] <danter> I don't want to copy too much from RO thou... where ninja is exactly an advancement from thief...<br> |
|||
[21:48:45] <danter> yeah<br> |
|||
[21:46:26] <Athana_> Yes kiheru, I guess u r right<br> |
|||
[21:49:04] <mblanch> Remember to write down conclusions at the wiki :P<br> |
|||
[21:47:05] <kiheru> I like an open class system too. You advance the skills you use<br> |
|||
[21:50:02] <danter> thats the idea I mostly like... then you need to go to those trainers, learn the skills they can learn, to later find that secret teacher far out in the bushes, to gain the speciallised class<br> |
|||
[21:47:38] <kiheru> but if everybody else wants the traditional approach, I'm fine with that too<br> |
|||
[21:50:58] <mblanch> danter: that and perhaps by using yourself the skill<br> |
|||
[21:47:43] <Athana_> What about that gear system danter?<br> |
|||
[21: |
[21:51:04] <danter> but, you still have the chance of scrapping all your formor work, to gain a completely new class<br> |
||
[21: |
[21:51:06] <mblanch> danter: although later would be slower<br> |
||
[21:51:38] <kiheru> a some sort of combined system? that sounds pretty good too<br> |
|||
[21:48:35] <mblanch> so ninja can need both thief and Monk<br> |
|||
[21:51:38] <danter> yeah<br> |
|||
[21:48:40] <mblanch> you need to develop both skills<br> |
|||
[21:51:54] <danter> well, a combined system was what I wanted from the start...<br> |
|||
[21:48:45] <danter> yeah<br> |
|||
[21: |
[21:52:27] <mblanch> BTW should gaining some skills disable your another set?<br> |
||
[21:53:26] <danter> http://arianne.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=StendhalRefactoringClassBasics<br> |
|||
[21:50:02] <danter> thats the idea I mostly like... then you need to go to those trainers, learn the skills they can learn, to later find that secret teacher far out in the bushes, to gain the speciallised class<br> |
|||
[21:53:46] <Athana_> So figher advances to the kind he has more 'declension'?<br> |
|||
[21:50:58] <mblanch> danter: that and perhaps by using yourself the skill<br> |
|||
[21:54:03] <kiheru> probably not, or maybe degrade the skills slow: gaining 2 xp for skill X removes 1 xp from skill Y<br> |
|||
[21:51:04] <danter> but, you still have the chance of scrapping all your formor work, to gain a completely new class<br> |
|||
[21:54:03] <kymara> what did you decide about where to put this stuff?<br> |
|||
[21:51:06] <mblanch> danter: although later would be slower<br> |
|||
[21:54:09] <kymara> sf or wiki?<br> |
|||
[21:51:38] <kiheru> a some sort of combined system? that sounds pretty good too<br> |
|||
[21:54:09] <danter> yes, some skills might work "directly" against eachother in nature, thus they won't be able to be used togheter<br> |
|||
[21:51:38] <danter> yeah<br> |
|||
[21:54:13] <Oslsachem> About the "forgetting old things in order to learn new ones", I think that something of the old knowledge should be always kept, like when you learn to ride a bicycle.<br> |
|||
[21:51:54] <danter> well, a combined system was what I wanted from the start...<br> |
|||
[21:54:35] <Oslsachem> wiki kymara, to keep it more organized.<br> |
|||
[21:52:27] <mblanch> BTW should gaining some skills disable your another set?<br> |
|||
[21:54:54] <kiheru> yep. it feels quite odd that you'd completely forget your old skills<br> |
|||
[21:53:26] <danter> http://arianne.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=StendhalRefactoringClassBasics<br> |
|||
[21:55:29] <mblanch_away> Oslsachem: wiki for results, SF for discussion<br> |
|||
[21:53:46] <Athana_> So figher advances to the kind he has more 'declension'?<br> |
|||
[21:56:02] <danter> not if you have some powerful magic that an NPC casts, that make you loose your old progress... in order to open your mind to other advantages :)<br> |
|||
[21:54:03] <kiheru> probably not, or maybe degrade the skills slow: gaining 2 xp for skill X removes 1 xp from skill Y<br> |
|||
[21:56:21] <kiheru> ugh<br> |
|||
[21:54:03] <kymara> what did you decide about where to put this stuff?<br> |
|||
[21:57:02] <kiheru> possibly with some magical skills (have white and black magic conflict), otherwise it sounds just bad<br> |
|||
[21:54:09] <kymara> sf or wiki?<br> |
|||
[21:57:26] <Oslsachem> in that case he could put her magic to better use simply by making your mind more capable of retaining knowledge :)<br> |
|||
[21:54:09] <danter> yes, some skills might work "directly" against eachother in nature, thus they won't be able to be used togheter<br> |
|||
[21:57:28] <danter> well, anyways, the entire idea is that sometimes I think the classess is too locked in games... you make a choice but can never rewert it if you learnt that you don't like it<br> |
|||
[21:54:13] <Oslsachem> About the "forgetting old things in order to learn new ones", I think that something of the old knowledge should be always kept, like when you learn to ride a bicycle.<br> |
|||
[21:59:01] <Athana_> Yes, but some like more to be magicians or Monks or bowmen, and also different specialties is needed for parties<br> |
|||
[21:54:35] <Oslsachem> wiki kymara, to keep it more organized.<br> |
|||
[21:59:06] <danter> in reality, you almost always can change your way of life by taking a new education, but you hardly gets as specialised as someone who took that line from the beginning... if you arn'nt a very talanted pesron that is<br> |
|||
[21:54:54] <kiheru> yep. it feels quite odd that you'd completely forget your old skills<br> |
|||
[21:59:34] <danter> and in arianne, everyone is a hero... meaning they are a prodigy never seen before conserning talent<br> |
|||
[21:55:29] <mblanch_away> Oslsachem: wiki for results, SF for discussion<br> |
|||
[22:00:15] <Athana_> Oh check Vechs. He looooves to be a thief<br> |
|||
[21:56:02] <danter> not if you have some powerful magic that an NPC casts, that make you loose your old progress... in order to open your mind to other advantages :)<br> |
|||
[22:01:10] <Athana_> But something like Robin Hood<br> |
|||
[21:56:21] <kiheru> ugh<br> |
|||
[22:01:52] <Athana_> Underlaw, but still on the good side<br> |
|||
[21:57:02] <kiheru> possibly with some magical skills (have white and black magic conflict), otherwise it sounds just bad<br> |
|||
[22:02:51] <Athana_> But even a Necromancer(drow maybe?) can fight in a party for good cause in RPGs<br> |
|||
[21:57:26] <Oslsachem> in that case he could put her magic to better use simply by making your mind more capable of retaining knowledge :)<br> |
|||
[22:03:17] <Athana_> Necromancer=dark priest<br> |
|||
[21:57:28] <danter> well, anyways, the entire idea is that sometimes I think the classess is too locked in games... you make a choice but can never rewert it if you learnt that you don't like it<br> |
|||
[22:03:58] <Athana_> ...or he belongs on same magic school<br> |
|||
[21:59:01] <Athana_> Yes, but some like more to be magicians or Monks or bowmen, and also different specialties is needed for parties<br> |
|||
[22:05:11] <Oslsachem> what are classes going to be used for? are they merely an informative title? why not compute the current player's class using her current attributes?<br> |
|||
[21:59:06] <danter> in reality, you almost always can change your way of life by taking a new education, but you hardly gets as specialised as someone who took that line from the beginning... if you arn'nt a very talanted pesron that is<br> |
|||
[22:06:21] <danter> well, a class is still based on what skills you have I presume<br> |
|||
[21:59:34] <danter> and in arianne, everyone is a hero... meaning they are a prodigy never seen before conserning talent<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:06:55] <Oslsachem> I mean, what entitles you to a class? choosing it?<br> |
||
[22: |
[22:07:12] <Athana_> Hmm maybe in what you are most good<br> |
||
[22:07:21] <danter> maybe going to a hunters guild and sign upp to work for them?<br> |
|||
[22:01:52] <Athana_> Underlaw, but still on the good side<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:07:26] <Athana_> Like for example you can be a battlemage<br> |
||
[22:07:43] <danter> then you are a hunter, and gain the possibility to take quests from them<br> |
|||
[22:03:17] <Athana_> Necromancer=dark priest<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:07:57] <Athana_> Battlemage is good in close combat but using spells from dinstance too<br> |
||
[22:08:52] <Athana_> Yes, a mages guild to accept you, you must have good magic skills<br> |
|||
[22:05:11] <Oslsachem> what are classes going to be used for? are they merely an informative title? why not compute the current player's class using her current attributes?<br> |
|||
[22:08:54] <danter> anyone can get thrown out of a guild thou... and if you don't follow the guild standards... well... by by... your out of here<br> |
|||
[22:06:21] <danter> well, a class is still based on what skills you have I presume<br> |
|||
[22:09:19] <danter> and in that way, we have a very good thing the karma can be used for<br> |
|||
[22:06:55] <Oslsachem> I mean, what entitles you to a class? choosing it?<br> |
|||
[22:10:08] <danter> an acolyte (priest) hardly would be accepted if you had too bad karma for instance ;)<br> |
|||
[22:07:12] <Athana_> Hmm maybe in what you are most good<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:10:55] <danter> anyways, back to the real thing that started this discussion, namely base attributes<br> |
||
[22:10:56] <Oslsachem> so the purpose of the classes is restricting quests/guild access to players?<br> |
|||
[22:07:26] <Athana_> Like for example you can be a battlemage<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:11:18] <Athana_> And if you have bad carma? You are welcome to thieves or Heretics guild :-P<br> |
||
[22:11:21] <danter> yeah, something like that<br> |
|||
[22:07:57] <Athana_> Battlemage is good in close combat but using spells from dinstance too<br> |
|||
[22:12:03] <danter> I would probably call it the warlocks guild and not heretics guild thou :P<br> |
|||
[22:08:52] <Athana_> Yes, a mages guild to accept you, you must have good magic skills<br> |
|||
[22:12:41] <Athana_> Hmm but dark priest and Necromancers? Why not to a heretic guild<br> |
|||
[22:08:54] <danter> anyone can get thrown out of a guild thou... and if you don't follow the guild standards... well... by by... your out of here<br> |
|||
[22:12:58] <Oslsachem> if that was the case, it could be delayed until stendhal has a class specific quest/guild by virtue of the YAGNI principle :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAGNI<br> |
|||
[22:09:19] <danter> and in that way, we have a very good thing the karma can be used for<br> |
|||
[22:13:02] <kiheru> yep. they would not call themselves heretic, knowing they are right! :-P<br> |
|||
[22:10:08] <danter> an acolyte (priest) hardly would be accepted if you had too bad karma for instance ;)<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:13:57] <danter> but still... what we first need, is a robust base system<br> |
||
[22:14:17] <kiheru> yes. build the foundation first<br> |
|||
[22:10:56] <Oslsachem> so the purpose of the classes is restricting quests/guild access to players?<br> |
|||
[22:14:32] <danter> all classes and the likes can come after we have decided on the base attributes<br> |
|||
[22:11:18] <Athana_> And if you have bad carma? You are welcome to thieves or Heretics guild :-P<br> |
|||
[22:14:41] <Athana_> Yes, and mages who use very much black magic<br> |
|||
[22:11:21] <danter> yeah, something like that<br> |
|||
[22:15:00] <Athana_> Yes danter<br> |
|||
[22:12:03] <danter> I would probably call it the warlocks guild and not heretics guild thou :P<br> |
|||
[22:15:30] <danter> so... <br> |
|||
[22:12:41] <Athana_> Hmm but dark priest and Necromancers? Why not to a heretic guild<br> |
|||
[22:15:31] <danter> http://arianne.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=StendhalRPProposal<br> |
|||
[22:12:58] <Oslsachem> if that was the case, it could be delayed until stendhal has a class specific quest/guild by virtue of the YAGNI principle :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAGNI<br> |
|||
[22:15:59] <Athana_> And for guilds, we need big interiors, NPCs, quests from that guilds, games and offers only for guild members<br> |
|||
[22:13:02] <kiheru> yep. they would not call themselves heretic, knowing they are right! :-P<br> |
|||
[22:16:07] <Oslsachem> I think we should define the classes in terms of percentages of the player's attributes<br> |
|||
[22:13:57] <danter> but still... what we first need, is a robust base system<br> |
|||
[22:16:57] <danter> I was reading on that... and noticed that we only have one skill for hitting and dodging, namely dex... wich means that the thief class is missing alot of it's base <br> |
|||
[22:14:17] <kiheru> yes. build the foundation first<br> |
|||
[22:20:28] <danter> Oslsachem: if you are out in the forest, shooting a bow... even if your not shooting in that really good... cause you normally use your sword arm... what class are you then?<br> |
|||
[22:14:32] <danter> all classes and the likes can come after we have decided on the base attributes<br> |
|||
[22:20:59] <danter> I would say that for the moment... you are a hunter<br> |
|||
[22:14:41] <Athana_> Yes, and mages who use very much black magic<br> |
|||
[22:21:32] <danter> even if you might be an apprentice hunter<br> |
|||
[22:15:00] <Athana_> Yes danter<br> |
|||
[22:21:49] <Oslsachem> well, attributes are perhaps oversimplified because then intellingence includes cunning and wisdom too<br> |
|||
[22:15:30] <danter> so... <br> |
|||
[22:22:15] <Oslsachem> you're a fighter using a bow?<br> |
|||
[22:15:31] <danter> http://arianne.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=StendhalRPProposal<br> |
|||
[22:22:26] <danter> well, can happen right?<br> |
|||
[22:15:59] <Athana_> And for guilds, we need big interiors, NPCs, quests from that guilds, games and offers only for guild members<br> |
|||
[22:22:35] <Oslsachem> of course<br> |
|||
[22:16:07] <Oslsachem> I think we should define the classes in terms of percentages of the player's attributes<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:22:55] <danter> maybe I decided it was too dangerous... beeing soo close to your target... so I wanted to... stay a bit away from it<br> |
||
[22:23:16] <danter> thus I started using a bow... but I can't shoot it that well... yet<br> |
|||
[22:20:28] <danter> Oslsachem: if you are out in the forest, shooting a bow... even if your not shooting in that really good... cause you normally use your sword arm... what class are you then?<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:23:38] <danter> but I would still consider myself as a hunter at that moment... just that I am an apprentice hunter<br> |
||
[22: |
[22:24:01] <Oslsachem> ok, you're a hunter wannabe so what? :)<br> |
||
[22:24:04] <danter> well, conclusion:<br> |
|||
[22:21:49] <Oslsachem> well, attributes are perhaps oversimplified because then intellingence includes cunning and wisdom too<br> |
|||
[22:24:24] <danter> attributes dosn't say a thing about what class you are, but what you see yourself as<br> |
|||
[22:22:15] <Oslsachem> you're a fighter using a bow?<br> |
|||
[22:24:34] <Oslsachem> there's a difference between what you consider yourself and what you're best at in that moment<br> |
|||
[22:22:26] <danter> well, can happen right?<br> |
|||
[22:25:10] <Oslsachem> when you ask for a task, they ask you to prove your skills with the sword and bow<br> |
|||
[22:22:35] <Oslsachem> of course<br> |
|||
[22:25:18] <danter> yes, but I still left that warriors guild, so im an ex-warrior now, but a hunter apprentice aswell<br> |
|||
[22:22:55] <danter> maybe I decided it was too dangerous... beeing soo close to your target... so I wanted to... stay a bit away from it<br> |
|||
[22:25:19] <Oslsachem> what do you think they would think you are?<br> |
|||
[22:23:16] <danter> thus I started using a bow... but I can't shoot it that well... yet<br> |
|||
[22:25:29] <Oslsachem> what you tell them or what they see you are?<br> |
|||
[22:23:38] <danter> but I would still consider myself as a hunter at that moment... just that I am an apprentice hunter<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:26:23] <Oslsachem> oh well, let's say then that you are 95% warrior and 5% hunter<br> |
||
[22: |
[22:26:28] <Oslsachem> it's fair<br> |
||
[22: |
[22:27:04] <Oslsachem> we could have a main, second and third class at a current time<br> |
||
[22:27:23] <Oslsachem> *given<br> |
|||
[22:24:34] <Oslsachem> there's a difference between what you consider yourself and what you're best at in that moment<br> |
|||
[22:27:39] <danter> id still say that you decide what class you are by yourself... namely by choosing guild, just that there is grades to how much of that class you are, apprentice, journeyman... expert, master etc etc<br> |
|||
[22:25:10] <Oslsachem> when you ask for a task, they ask you to prove your skills with the sword and bow<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:28:31] <danter> then, if someone comes up to you and ask... so, what do you work as....<br> |
||
[22: |
[22:28:42] <danter> then you can answer... well im an apprentice hunter<br> |
||
[22: |
[22:28:54] <Oslsachem> then there would be a "current class" and a "target class" what you actually are and what you would like to be<br> |
||
[22:29:01] <danter> but you can still hide the fact that your a master swordsman aswell<br> |
|||
[22:26:23] <Oslsachem> oh well, let's say then that you are 95% warrior and 5% hunter<br> |
|||
[22:35:12] <Oslsachem> well, I'm a bit lost with all this. We should get sure that everything can be put to good use in the game. There's not much point on being a fighter if you're the only one who knows it for sure by seeing it in your stats.<br> |
|||
[22:26:28] <Oslsachem> it's fair<br> |
|||
[22:37:23] <danter> in pvp something like that is very... _very_ handy<br> |
|||
[22:27:04] <Oslsachem> we could have a main, second and third class at a current time<br> |
|||
[22:37:34] <danter> cause you normally want to hide your true power<br> |
|||
[22:27:23] <Oslsachem> *given<br> |
|||
[22:38:17] <Oslsachem> but then the other player must believe in your word? :/<br> |
|||
[22:27:39] <danter> id still say that you decide what class you are by yourself... namely by choosing guild, just that there is grades to how much of that class you are, apprentice, journeyman... expert, master etc etc<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:39:11] <danter> well, if they don't belive in your words... you can still show them by yourself?<br> |
||
[22: |
[22:39:31] <danter> just equip a sword and warrior armor, and beat there assess<br> |
||
[22: |
[22:41:23] <Oslsachem> so class will effectively limit the equipment you can use? or the bonuses?<br> |
||
[22:42:55] <danter> the main idea I had, was that armor and weapons should decide entirely what class you are... for the moment... just that you can't change your entire gear out in the woods to change from warrior to priest<br> |
|||
[22:29:01] <danter> but you can still hide the fact that your a master swordsman aswell<br> |
|||
[22:43:25] <danter> http://arianne.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=StendhalRefactoringClassBasics#Open_System<br> |
|||
[22:35:12] <Oslsachem> well, I'm a bit lost with all this. We should get sure that everything can be put to good use in the game. There's not much point on being a fighter if you're the only one who knows it for sure by seeing it in your stats.<br> |
|||
[22:44:45] <danter> Oslsachem: that is the main idea I had for the class system... not certain that will be the system we will have thou... but you see the details there<br> |
|||
[22:37:23] <danter> in pvp something like that is very... _very_ handy<br> |
|||
[22:44:56] <Oslsachem> but then, you are classless until you get a class specific armor which doesn't let the player choose the class from the beginning<br> |
|||
[22:37:34] <danter> cause you normally want to hide your true power<br> |
|||
[22:45:14] <danter> exactly<br> |
|||
[22:38:17] <Oslsachem> but then the other player must believe in your word? :/<br> |
|||
[22:46:47] <danter> and then you really start from scratch... you are that little boy that hunt rats down in the basement for the old lady with the rats problem, for a few gils, and later decide that... hmm im good with swords, I should join the warriors guild<br> |
|||
[22:39:11] <danter> well, if they don't belive in your words... you can still show them by yourself?<br> |
|||
[22:46:56] <Oslsachem> anyway, that reminds me of the saying: "The Cowl Doesn't Make the Monk" :)<br> |
|||
[22:39:31] <danter> just equip a sword and warrior armor, and beat there assess<br> |
|||
[22:47:15] <danter> FF style on money :P<br> |
|||
[22:41:23] <Oslsachem> so class will effectively limit the equipment you can use? or the bonuses?<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:48:45] <danter> but still, making the class choices ingame (and not before you start playing) is the best way in my opinion... cause then you can check with other players, and read in books in the library about the specific classes<br> |
||
[22:49:02] <Oslsachem> That's fine for a single player but in this case, the rats problem of the old lady will look insignificant compared to her little boys problem in the basement :P<br> |
|||
[22:43:25] <danter> http://arianne.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=StendhalRefactoringClassBasics#Open_System<br> |
|||
[22:49:03] <danter> before you make a decission<br> |
|||
[22:44:45] <danter> Oslsachem: that is the main idea I had for the class system... not certain that will be the system we will have thou... but you see the details there<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:50:09] <danter> well, we have a pretty nice rat dungeon in semos... Id say it's rather big... so the old lady in this case is the old mayor, <br> |
||
[22:50:17] <Oslsachem> I agree that your class choice should reflect your behaviour in game, but I thought you wanted to allow the player choose the class from the beginning<br> |
|||
[22:45:14] <danter> exactly<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:51:55] <danter> well, if we make it in a nice way, you will be able to... just go to that veteran solder who has tryed the most in his life, and he will give you a few pointers on what yhou should increase in order to become that class<br> |
||
[22:52:34] <danter> maybe he can teach some very basic class skills from most classes aswell<br> |
|||
[22:46:56] <Oslsachem> anyway, that reminds me of the saying: "The Cowl Doesn't Make the Monk" :)<br> |
|||
[22:53:47] <Oslsachem> so you suggest the class isn't chosen directly but indirectly through attributes?<br> |
|||
[22:47:15] <danter> FF style on money :P<br> |
|||
[22:54:41] <Oslsachem> what are class skills? I thought class and skil were the same according to the wiki<br> |
|||
[22:48:45] <danter> but still, making the class choices ingame (and not before you start playing) is the best way in my opinion... cause then you can check with other players, and read in books in the library about the specific classes<br> |
|||
[22:57:21] <danter> http://arianne.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=StendhalRefactoringClassArcher#Archer_Class<br> |
|||
[22:49:02] <Oslsachem> That's fine for a single player but in this case, the rats problem of the old lady will look insignificant compared to her little boys problem in the basement :P<br> |
|||
[22: |
[22:57:39] <danter> some we probably will have for archer as it's named<br> |
||
[22:58:06] <Oslsachem> anyway, organizing skills in a tree prevent a player from being in more than one class at the same time, like 50% fighter 50% hunter<br> |
|||
[22:50:09] <danter> well, we have a pretty nice rat dungeon in semos... Id say it's rather big... so the old lady in this case is the old mayor, <br> |
|||
[22:58:32] <danter> hrm... mblanch_away have named the classes skills on that new page o_O<br> |
|||
[22:50:17] <Oslsachem> I agree that your class choice should reflect your behaviour in game, but I thought you wanted to allow the player choose the class from the beginning<br> |
|||
[23:00:12] <danter> well, the tree is intended so that you need to learn some basic skills, before you can learn the more advanced skills<br> |
|||
[22:51:55] <danter> well, if we make it in a nice way, you will be able to... just go to that veteran solder who has tryed the most in his life, and he will give you a few pointers on what yhou should increase in order to become that class<br> |
|||
[23:00:15] <Oslsachem> hmmm... so this would be the equivalent to spells in the mage class?<br> |
|||
[22:52:34] <danter> maybe he can teach some very basic class skills from most classes aswell<br> |
|||
[23:00:21] <danter> yeah<br> |
|||
[22:53:47] <Oslsachem> so you suggest the class isn't chosen directly but indirectly through attributes?<br> |
|||
[ |
[23:00:43] <Oslsachem> but these should be learnt after you are an archer not before<br> |
||
[23:00:51] <Oslsachem> they presume you're one already<br> |
|||
[22:57:21] <danter> http://arianne.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=StendhalRefactoringClassArcher#Archer_Class<br> |
|||
[ |
[23:01:18] <danter> well... did you read that Open class system idea?<br> |
||
[23:01:31] <Oslsachem> yes, but I've forgotten :P<br> |
|||
[22:58:06] <Oslsachem> anyway, organizing skills in a tree prevent a player from being in more than one class at the same time, like 50% fighter 50% hunter<br> |
|||
[23:01:39] <danter> it's a rather crucial part of this entire idea<br> |
|||
[22:58:32] <danter> hrm... mblanch_away have named the classes skills on that new page o_O<br> |
|||
[23:05:14] <Oslsachem> what are opposing skills?<br> |
|||
[23:00:12] <danter> well, the tree is intended so that you need to learn some basic skills, before you can learn the more advanced skills<br> |
|||
[23:05:29] <durkham_laptop> white and black magic<br> |
|||
[23:00:15] <Oslsachem> hmmm... so this would be the equivalent to spells in the mage class?<br> |
|||
[23:06:17] <durkham_laptop> blacksmith and knitting :)<br> |
|||
[23:00:21] <danter> yeah<br> |
|||
[23:07:04] <danter> skills that entirely is against eachother in nature<br> |
|||
[23:00:43] <Oslsachem> but these should be learnt after you are an archer not before<br> |
|||
[23:07:53] <Oslsachem> "change the gear to fit the opponent they are currently fighting" -> you mean classes are like the "Rock, paper, scissors" game?<br> |
|||
[23:00:51] <Oslsachem> they presume you're one already<br> |
|||
[23:08:44] <danter> well, if you are fighting an elemental, that hardly takes damage from melee damage, you sholdnt be able to suddenly become a mage to fight it better<br> |
|||
[23:01:18] <danter> well... did you read that Open class system idea?<br> |
|||
[23:09:11] <danter> thats what a party is for, one play the mage role, one the tank/warrior role and yet another the healer/priest role<br> |
|||
[23:01:31] <Oslsachem> yes, but I've forgotten :P<br> |
|||
[23:10:28] <danter> and some dungeons should probably have a mix of magically strong creatures, and physically strong creatures, so one alone woldnt be able to clear it<br> |
|||
[23:01:39] <danter> it's a rather crucial part of this entire idea<br> |
|||
[23:11:29] <Oslsachem> well, I wouldn't disable skills, you could still be a mage but the armor you're wearing would put a penalty to your skills<br> |
|||
[23:05:14] <Oslsachem> what are opposing skills?<br> |
|||
[23:13:46] <kiheru> we probably need a magic channelling attribute for items. So that wizards would naturally prefer robes and a staff for instance<br> |
|||
[23:05:29] <durkham_laptop> white and black magic<br> |
|||
[23:14:28] <danter> the thing is that you still sholdnt be able to use a skill like "Quick Strike" when you are a warrior<br> |
|||
[23:06:17] <durkham_laptop> blacksmith and knitting :)<br> |
|||
[23: |
[23:14:56] <danter> or the skill "Falcon Eyes"<br> |
||
[23:15:37] <danter> well, the skill "Falcon Eyes", probably should be possible to be used...<br> |
|||
[23:07:53] <Oslsachem> "change the gear to fit the opponent they are currently fighting" -> you mean classes are like the "Rock, paper, scissors" game?<br> |
|||
[23:16:09] <kiheru> so limit a quick strike to light weapons. a warrior would not like to use those anyway<br> |
|||
[23:08:44] <danter> well, if you are fighting an elemental, that hardly takes damage from melee damage, you sholdnt be able to suddenly become a mage to fight it better<br> |
|||
[23:16:30] <danter> quick strike should be limited to ranged weapons<br> |
|||
[23:09:11] <danter> thats what a party is for, one play the mage role, one the tank/warrior role and yet another the healer/priest role<br> |
|||
[23:16:40] <danter> Quick Strike - Waste some MP to fire a few fast arrows towards one opponent<br> |
|||
[23:10:28] <danter> and some dungeons should probably have a mix of magically strong creatures, and physically strong creatures, so one alone woldnt be able to clear it<br> |
|||
[23:17:19] <danter> i defently would like to be able to use such a skill as a warrior... doing a few fast sword attacks instead<br> |
|||
[23:11:29] <Oslsachem> well, I wouldn't disable skills, you could still be a mage but the armor you're wearing would put a penalty to your skills<br> |
|||
[23:17:37] <Oslsachem> maybe quick shot is a more appropriate term as it implies that something is thrown<br> |
|||
[23:13:46] <kiheru> we probably need a magic channelling attribute for items. So that wizards would naturally prefer robes and a staff for instance<br> |
|||
[23: |
[23:18:25] <ChadF> danter: the tricky part is "when to use it and when not to" and avoiding a complex interface<br> |
||
[23: |
[23:19:13] <danter> yeah... thats the biggest problem about all classes I belive<br> |
||
[23:19:14] * Oslsachem hears mblanch_away saying KISS...KISS...<br> |
|||
[23:15:37] <danter> well, the skill "Falcon Eyes", probably should be possible to be used...<br> |
|||
[23:23:30] <Oslsachem> I think the "when to use skill" should be related to the player's attributes and armor/weapons should alter/require some of those attributes and skills at the same time<br> |
|||
[23:16:09] <kiheru> so limit a quick strike to light weapons. a warrior would not like to use those anyway<br> |
|||
[23:38:06] <ChadF> Oslsachem: for my idea, there would be a set of skills groups associated with each weapon/shield/whatever, each having a percentage of the whole skillset.. so a short sword might have (from an atk perspective): atk:20 stab:10 swing:20 sword:25 close_range:25 ... a long sword: atk:20 stab:5 swing:25 sword:25 medium_range:25 and a dagger: atk:20 swing:10 stab:20 dagger:25 close_range:25<br> |
|||
[23:16:30] <danter> quick strike should be limited to ranged weapons<br> |
|||
[23:40:29] <ChadF> each skill contributes based on it's ratio, and as you learn, they up those levels based on the same ratio.. and lets some skills traverse weapons.. and any sword ups sword, swing, and stab skills, but others may have other common "learned skills"<br> |
|||
[23:16:40] <danter> Quick Strike - Waste some MP to fire a few fast arrows towards one opponent<br> |
|||
[23:41:35] <ChadF> (in this case I used ratio values that add up to 100%, but in impl it would just figure out the ratio itself (each / sum{all})<br> |
|||
[23:17:19] <danter> i defently would like to be able to use such a skill as a warrior... doing a few fast sword attacks instead<br> |
|||
[23:44:39] <ChadF> in the end someone that has mastered a sword will be rather bad at a bow/arrow at first (only the general "atk" skill giving them any base skill)<br> |
|||
[23:17:37] <Oslsachem> maybe quick shot is a more appropriate term as it implies that something is thrown<br> |
|||
[23:49:06] <Oslsachem> and how do you implement the penalties/requirements? with negative ratios?<br> |
|||
[23:18:25] <ChadF> danter: the tricky part is "when to use it and when not to" and avoiding a complex interface<br> |
|||
[23:51:11] <ChadF> so a penalty would be "unlearning" a skill?<br> |
|||
[23:19:13] <danter> yeah... thats the biggest problem about all classes I belive<br> |
|||
[23:52:29] <ChadF> if you mean for things like HP or MP, thos would be handled differently.. this would just be for learned skills, not energy levels<br> |
|||
[23:19:14] * Oslsachem hears mblanch_away saying KISS...KISS...<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
[23:23:30] <Oslsachem> I think the "when to use skill" should be related to the player's attributes and armor/weapons should alter/require some of those attributes and skills at the same time<br> |
|||
[00:45:23] <danter> http://arianne.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=StendhalRefactoringClassMage#Mage_Class<br> |
|||
[23:38:06] <ChadF> Oslsachem: for my idea, there would be a set of skills groups associated with each weapon/shield/whatever, each having a percentage of the whole skillset.. so a short sword might have (from an atk perspective): atk:20 stab:10 swing:20 sword:25 close_range:25 ... a long sword: atk:20 stab:5 swing:25 sword:25 medium_range:25 and a dagger: atk:20 swing:10 stab:20 dagger:25 close_range:25<br> |
|||
[00:45:58] <danter> first skill tree made... nothing is writtened in stone yet, but atleast my idea of a skill tree is there<br> |
|||
[23:40:29] <ChadF> each skill contributes based on it's ratio, and as you learn, they up those levels based on the same ratio.. and lets some skills traverse weapons.. and any sword ups sword, swing, and stab skills, but others may have other common "learned skills"<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
[23:41:35] <ChadF> (in this case I used ratio values that add up to 100%, but in impl it would just figure out the ratio itself (each / sum{all})<br> |
|||
[01:06:29] <Oslsachem> ChadF: why do you normalize the skills associated with each item?<br> |
|||
[23:44:39] <ChadF> in the end someone that has mastered a sword will be rather bad at a bow/arrow at first (only the general "atk" skill giving them any base skill)<br> |
|||
[01:09:24] <ChadF> each skill would contribute a certain amount to the full potential of the item. But that can't be more than 100%, so their ratios are used to build their contributions toward it<br> |
|||
[23:49:06] <Oslsachem> and how do you implement the penalties/requirements? with negative ratios?<br> |
|||
[01:15:34] <Oslsachem> I don't understand what the full potential of an item is... You mean the strongest blow/shot before it breaks?<br> |
|||
[23:51:11] <ChadF> so a penalty would be "unlearning" a skill?<br> |
|||
[01:26:06] <ChadF> A weapon has a certain about of potential damage that has to follow the [game] laws of physics. A wood club (for example) should never be able to inflict damage above a certain point, no matter how good a player is. So it's limit would be directly tied to it's atk value (assuming mastered player skill).<br> |
|||
[23:52:29] <ChadF> if you mean for things like HP or MP, thos would be handled differently.. this would just be for learned skills, not energy levels<br> |
|||
[01:26:33] <Oslsachem> dagger: atk:20 swing:10 stab:20 dagger:25 close_range:25 --> how would you calculate how much potential does the player get from the item?<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
[01:27:10] <ChadF> so if a player has reach 100% on all skills that contribute to using a wood club, then that would end up (give or take) 100% of it's max atk.<br> |
|||
[00:45:23] <danter> http://arianne.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=StendhalRefactoringClassMage#Mage_Class<br> |
|||
[01:28:15] <ChadF> wisdom(skill[atk]) * 0.2 + wisdom(skill[swing]) * 0.10 + wisdom(skill[stab]) * 0.20 + ...<br> |
|||
[00:45:58] <danter> first skill tree made... nothing is writtened in stone yet, but atleast my idea of a skill tree is there<br> |
|||
[01:28:40] <ChadF> wisdom is a value from 0.0 to 1.0 based on a level<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
[01: |
[01:31:57] <Oslsachem> but atk, swing and stab are supposed to be based on level too<br> |
||
[01:32:18] <ChadF> they aren't based on levels.. they are levels<br> |
|||
[01:09:24] <ChadF> each skill would contribute a certain amount to the full potential of the item. But that can't be more than 100%, so their ratios are used to build their contributions toward it<br> |
|||
[01:32:47] <ChadF> so basically atk is split into functional atk values, not just one general one<br> |
|||
[01:15:34] <Oslsachem> I don't understand what the full potential of an item is... You mean the strongest blow/shot before it breaks?<br> |
|||
[01:36:36] <Oslsachem> what's the relation between a player's level and skill levels then?<br> |
|||
[01:26:06] <ChadF> A weapon has a certain about of potential damage that has to follow the [game] laws of physics. A wood club (for example) should never be able to inflict damage above a certain point, no matter how good a player is. So it's limit would be directly tied to it's atk value (assuming mastered player skill).<br> |
|||
[01:40:40] <Oslsachem> I was thinking that if wisdom() was al inear function you could call it just once? :)<br> |
|||
[01:26:33] <Oslsachem> dagger: atk:20 swing:10 stab:20 dagger:25 close_range:25 --> how would you calculate how much potential does the player get from the item?<br> |
|||
[01:44:13] <ChadF> it's an exponential curve (but precomputed in a lookup table), like xp <-> level is<br> |
|||
[01:27:10] <ChadF> so if a player has reach 100% on all skills that contribute to using a wood club, then that would end up (give or take) 100% of it's max atk.<br> |
|||
[01:49:08] <Oslsachem> when do you reach wisdom 1?<br> |
|||
[01:28:15] <ChadF> wisdom(skill[atk]) * 0.2 + wisdom(skill[swing]) * 0.10 + wisdom(skill[stab]) * 0.20 + ...<br> |
|||
[01: |
[01:53:51] <ChadF> at the maximum level<br> |
||
[01:54:56] <ChadF> but it's an inverse curve.. so you gain wisdom faster at first, then more slowly<br> |
|||
[01:31:57] <Oslsachem> but atk, swing and stab are supposed to be based on level too<br> |
|||
[01:56:03] <Oslsachem> so there's a level cap<br> |
|||
[01:32:18] <ChadF> they aren't based on levels.. they are levels<br> |
|||
[01:57:02] <Oslsachem> yes, I see it's a logarithmic curve but capped<br> |
|||
[01:32:47] <ChadF> so basically atk is split into functional atk values, not just one general one<br> |
|||
[01:59:24] <Athana_> I'll read last logs tomorrow cause I'm sleepy. But so far I red about danter and hunter. Hmm we can name them as hunter, if he is good in bow and close combat, bowman if he is great in bow and not good in close combat, archer if are very good on bow and almost useless and weak on close combat, Ranger(preferably elf)if you are good in bow, sword, with very good survival ability in harsh environments and with bonus in forests, etc<br> |
|||
[01:36:36] <Oslsachem> what's the relation between a player's level and skill levels then?<br> |
|||
[01:59:32] <ChadF> right.. so if a player was to make out their level for each skill that contributes to an item, they get it's full potential (or some scale.. perhaps a *really* experienced player could find ways to utilize an item to 120% of it's potential)<br> |
|||
[01:40:40] <Oslsachem> I was thinking that if wisdom() was al inear function you could call it just once? :)<br> |
|||
[02:05:02] <Athana_> And a berserk skill for Barbarian warrior...<br> |
|||
[01:44:13] <ChadF> it's an exponential curve (but precomputed in a lookup table), like xp <-> level is<br> |
|||
[02:08:53] <Oslsachem> Anyway, ChadF, what you suggest with the wisdom modifier is that two persons with the same set of skills wouldn't take the same potential out of the same item but that seems quite improbable because the set of skill levels should reflect the wisdom level of the player<br> |
|||
[01:49:08] <Oslsachem> when do you reach wisdom 1?<br> |
|||
[02:09:22] <Oslsachem> In other words, how could a player gain wisdom without increasing her skills?<br> |
|||
[01:53:51] <ChadF> at the maximum level<br> |
|||
[02:17:55] <ChadF> they can't.. the skill levels will be low to start (just like atk & def are now), and as they use items that relate to skills, those particular skills get raised<br> |
|||
[01:54:56] <ChadF> but it's an inverse curve.. so you gain wisdom faster at first, then more slowly<br> |
|||
[02:19:35] <Oslsachem> so what do you try to address with the wisdom modifier? I mean, if a player has more wisdom then she necessarily has higher skills already<br> |
|||
[01:56:03] <Oslsachem> so there's a level cap<br> |
|||
[02:20:21] <ChadF> a way to map a skill level to a usable scaling factor<br> |
|||
[01:57:02] <Oslsachem> yes, I see it's a logarithmic curve but capped<br> |
|||
[02:21:25] * ChadF would personaly prefer that most skills increase from use/practice, unlike now where it only raises special conditions (not that that can't still exist for certain skills)<br> |
|||
[01:59:24] <Athana_> I'll read last logs tomorrow cause I'm sleepy. But so far I red about danter and hunter. Hmm we can name them as hunter, if he is good in bow and close combat, bowman if he is great in bow and not good in close combat, archer if are very good on bow and almost useless and weak on close combat, Ranger(preferably elf)if you are good in bow, sword, with very good survival ability in harsh environments and with bonus in forests, etc<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
[01:59:32] <ChadF> right.. so if a player was to make out their level for each skill that contributes to an item, they get it's full potential (or some scale.. perhaps a *really* experienced player could find ways to utilize an item to 120% of it's potential)<br> |
|||
[02:48:06] <danter> http://arianne.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=StendhalRefactoringClassMage#Skill_Tree<br> |
|||
[02:05:02] <Athana_> And a berserk skill for Barbarian warrior...<br> |
|||
[02:48:40] <danter> there, fixed that skill tree a bit... noticed that it went outside screen on lower resolutions... and it will probably continue in that direction aswell<br> |
|||
[02:08:53] <Oslsachem> Anyway, ChadF, what you suggest with the wisdom modifier is that two persons with the same set of skills wouldn't take the same potential out of the same item but that seems quite improbable because the set of skill levels should reflect the wisdom level of the player<br> |
|||
[02:51:41] <danter> this is a way that I want the classes to progress (should be similar skill trees on other classess) even if we decide that you choose the class at character creation or not<br> |
|||
[02:09:22] <Oslsachem> In other words, how could a player gain wisdom without increasing her skills?<br> |
|||
[02:17:55] <ChadF> they can't.. the skill levels will be low to start (just like atk & def are now), and as they use items that relate to skills, those particular skills get raised<br> |
|||
[02:19:35] <Oslsachem> so what do you try to address with the wisdom modifier? I mean, if a player has more wisdom then she necessarily has higher skills already<br> |
|||
[02:20:21] <ChadF> a way to map a skill level to a usable scaling factor<br> |
|||
[02:21:25] * ChadF would personaly prefer that most skills increase from use/practice, unlike now where it only raises special conditions (not that that can't still exist for certain skills)<br> |
|||
<br> |
|||
[02:48:06] <danter> http://arianne.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=StendhalRefactoringClassMage#Skill_Tree<br> |
|||
[02:48:40] <danter> there, fixed that skill tree a bit... noticed that it went outside screen on lower resolutions... and it will probably continue in that direction aswell<br> |
|||
[02:51:41] <danter> this is a way that I want the classes to progress (should be similar skill trees on other classess) even if we decide that you choose the class at character creation or not<br> |
|||