05 Jul, 2009, Grimble wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Maybe this should be a poll, but I'm curious whether there's a preference for fewer skills/spells where they have levels (i.e., the higher the level/proficiency the stronger it is) or for different skills/spells with increasing strength?

Let's take the set of mage fire spells as an example… On a lot of MUDs, there are half a dozen fire related spells of increasing strength. Would it be better to just have one fire spell where the strength increases as the player levels, or puts experience or some other kind of points into it?
05 Jul, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Grimble said:
Maybe this should be a poll, but I'm curious whether there's a preference for fewer skills/spells where they have levels (i.e., the higher the level/proficiency the stronger it is) or for different skills/spells with increasing strength?

Let's take the set of mage fire spells as an example… On a lot of MUDs, there are half a dozen fire related spells of increasing strength. Would it be better to just have one fire spell where the strength increases as the player levels, or puts experience or some other kind of points into it?



I can see both sides of the argument.

We've taken the middle road, I guess you can say.

You gain your first 'red' spell fireball, and once you max fireball, you get the next 'red' spell combustion. It further goes to flare then merton at max. The spells increase in strength as they get higher, but they also increase in mana cost and they become more limited as to the level they can be modified. We have a casting system where while you are attempting to cast something, you have various modifications you can apply, and one of them is 'widen' which will increase the range that it hits. One widen will target group (your group if cast on self or group member, or enemy group if cast on enemies), a second widen will hit everyone in the room. There are further widens, but they are only available to immortals at the moment. Well, one of the limitations of the higher spells is limited ability to widen, as the 4th tier can't be widened at all.

I'm sure there are other ways this could be done, but this is the approach we've taken. The player only needs to spend the pracs/trains to learn the first spell, and the rest is automated by maxing spells. So in a way, I think that is a bit of a middle road.

Other ways to do this might include the level of the character, or the % of the spell the character has, etc.
05 Jul, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Yes. It is always better to have them increase in power, rather than simply adding a new more powerful version that forces the old one into obsolescence. The only argument I've ever heard for adding new spells/skills that are more powerful than the old ones is the desire to have a new name for the spell/skill, thus reflecting its new level of power (ie: fireball -> firestorm -> blazing inferno). If that's the only reason, why not just have the spell/skill change its name as it levels up?
05 Jul, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Lyanic said:
Yes. It is always better to have them increase in power, rather than simply adding a new more powerful version that forces the old one into obsolescence. The only argument I've ever heard for adding new spells/skills that are more powerful than the old ones is the desire to have a new name for the spell/skill, thus reflecting its new level of power (ie: fireball -> firestorm -> blazing inferno). If that's the only reason, why not just have the spell/skill change its name as it levels up?


Yeah, that's why we've tried to take into account having variations on the spells themselves. Greater power spells cost more mana, take longer to cast, and can't be widened to more than one enemy. So picking which fire spell to cast becomes less about what will do more damage and more about what is right for the situation.

I do agree, if scaling damage is the only difference, there's not much point in adding more other than for the sake of "having more skills".
05 Jul, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
Lyanic said:
Yes. It is always better to have them increase in power, rather than simply adding a new more powerful version that forces the old one into obsolescence. The only argument I've ever heard for adding new spells/skills that are more powerful than the old ones is the desire to have a new name for the spell/skill, thus reflecting its new level of power (ie: fireball -> firestorm -> blazing inferno). If that's the only reason, why not just have the spell/skill change its name as it levels up?


Yeah, that's why we've tried to take into account having variations on the spells themselves. Greater power spells cost more mana, take longer to cast, and can't be widened to more than one enemy. So picking which fire spell to cast becomes less about what will do more damage and more about what is right for the situation.

I do agree, if scaling damage is the only difference, there's not much point in adding more other than for the sake of "having more skills".

Aye, that's exactly what I meant. Your approach is fine - having variations, such as AoE vs. single target or high mana cost vs. low mana cost. Options are always good.
05 Jul, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't like just making higher level versions of the same spell, however it is fun to provide new spells that work in a similar, but slightly different way.

For example, if the first fire spell you get is a single-target direct damage spell, it makes sense that the spell will scale a little bit as you grow more powerful in fire magic. It doesn't make sense that it will scale all the way up to max-level, otherwise why bother learning new spells? Instead, at some point, introduce a new single-target direct damage spell that also has a damage-over-time component.

So, I'll use the word Rank to refer to the skill levels of the spell, and Level to refer to the character/class/guild level.

A rank 5 level 1 "flameburst" spell will do more damage than a rank 1 level 5 "ignite" spell. However, a rank 2 level 5 "ignite" spell will end up doing more damage when the DOT component is figured in. A rank 1 level 10 "fireball" spell will do more damage than flameburst of any kind, and more than the rank 1 ignite, but it also adds splash damage, where the AOE damage is in the form of a DOT. Maybe a level 15 spell would add AOE direct damage as well.

The idea is the build your toolkit. There may be times you don't want the AOE component, because you can't aggro something or it would kill you. There may also be times the DOT is bad (maybe they can instant-cast a shield so you start taking sympathetic damage for each DOT tick).

As others have said above, the idea is to give the player new things but still give them a reason to use the older stuff. Spells should never become useless, or there is a design flaw in your game.
05 Jul, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
For example, if the first fire spell you get is a single-target direct damage spell, it makes sense that the spell will scale a little bit as you grow more powerful in fire magic. It doesn't make sense that it will scale all the way up to max-level, otherwise why bother learning new spells?


quixadhal said:
As others have said above, the idea is to give the player new things but still give them a reason to use the older stuff. Spells should never become useless, or there is a design flaw in your game.


The above two statements seem to contradict each other. I agree with the second, but not the first - IMO it does make sense for your first spell to scale all the way up to max level, otherwise there won't be a reason to use it.

As you said yourself, the idea is to build your toolkit. Each and every tool should always have its place.
05 Jul, 2009, Idealiad wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
I like the toolkit analogy. As you get better using a hammer the hammer doesn't change. You can, however, choose different hammers for different tasks.
06 Jul, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
quixadhal said:
For example, if the first fire spell you get is a single-target direct damage spell, it makes sense that the spell will scale a little bit as you grow more powerful in fire magic. It doesn't make sense that it will scale all the way up to max-level, otherwise why bother learning new spells?


quixadhal said:
As others have said above, the idea is to give the player new things but still give them a reason to use the older stuff. Spells should never become useless, or there is a design flaw in your game.


The above two statements seem to contradict each other. I agree with the second, but not the first - IMO it does make sense for your first spell to scale all the way up to max level, otherwise there won't be a reason to use it.

As you said yourself, the idea is to build your toolkit. Each and every tool should always have its place.


Idealiad said:
I like the toolkit analogy. As you get better using a hammer the hammer doesn't change. You can, however, choose different hammers for different tasks.


That's my point. You may have a very nice tack hammer, and be very skilled with it, but that doesn't mean it's always the right tool to use. There's no reason spells you acquire early on will scale up to become god-like in power, yet that doesn't mean they're not useful in the right situation.

I guess the idea I'm pushing towards is that the goal should NOT always be superior force. If you can't think of a use for your lower-powered low level spell, you have designed your game so that numbers are more important than gameplay or story, and that's a mistake IMHO.

I think people in the MUD community are waaaay too obsessed with numbers, firepower, and combat. How many of you have ever played infocom games? You should provide players with opportunities to use their brains once in a while, instead of their stats.

For example, you are a starving fire mage. You've stumbled into a village where the people were preparing to cook dinner, but a summer squall has doused the wood that was set out to roast dinner.

Quote
KaVir casts 'megafireball rank 20' at a bundle of wood.
A gigantic ball of flame shoots towards the wood pile, sucking all the air from the room and causing several elderly people to pass out from lack of oxygen.
The fireball smashes into the bundle of wood with a detonation that shatters windows throughout the village!
Wood splinters fly in all directions, causing minor cuts and lacerations to everyone nearby!

vs.
Quote
Quixadhal casts 'ignite rank 3' at a bundle of wood.
A good-sized burst of flame shoots out and sets some of the smaller twigs and splinters on fire.
The villagers bring out a decent-sized pig and begin roasting it, offering to share.


Sure, the old spell might not be so handy in combat, but does EVERYTHING have to always be about combat? For that matter, does combat always have to be lethal? Perhaps the lower powered "old" spell would also come in handy for cases where an enemy has to be subdued, but not killed.

Or, maybe I'm just being grumpy. :)
06 Jul, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Sure, the old spell might not be so handy in combat, but does EVERYTHING have to always be about combat?


You know, Sonny, I don't think you should be playing MUDs. Why don't you go outside and play, oh, I dunno, maybe football? :smile:
06 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Sandi said:
quixadhal said:
Sure, the old spell might not be so handy in combat, but does EVERYTHING have to always be about combat?


You know, Sonny, I don't think you should be playing MUDs. Why don't you go outside and play, oh, I dunno, maybe football? :smile:


Lol, someone is calling Quix sonny. :)
06 Jul, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Lyanic said:
Yes. It is always better to have them increase in power, rather than simply adding a new more powerful version that forces the old one into obsolescence. The only argument I've ever heard for adding new spells/skills that are more powerful than the old ones is the desire to have a new name for the spell/skill, thus reflecting its new level of power (ie: fireball -> firestorm -> blazing inferno). If that's the only reason, why not just have the spell/skill change its name as it levels up?


In a DIKU setting, the reason for obsoleting newbie skills and requiring higher level skills is so players have to spend practices. The "game" is, you have to make an optimum choice between having every skill there is and not being able to practice them to an effective level, and having a limited selection that you can master. Granted, most dikurivatives don't achieve this balance (the ROM Consortium certainly didn't understand it), but it's a workable design.
06 Jul, 2009, Skol wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
I like scaling spell power, and having different uses for spells as well. I actually retrofitted many attack spells in my game so that they would increase in power (and sometimes range) as the character becomes more proficient in the spell, and higher level. IE. Fireball has a 1 room range attack generally, and does say xd20, 10 levels later it's 10xd20, but also has a chance to stun opponents with the explosion, and a battlemage casting it (if he knows the spell well enough) can cast it 2 rooms away and with a 25% damage bonus. All one spell, just different variables based on the castor.

I loved infocom games btw, and having interaction beyond the 'crush them' approach is a great concept.

Scaling spells I've done: magic missile (1 missile/10 levels, bonus to bmages and learned percentage), burning hands (same change, also area attack (cone of flame)), almost all attack spells will scale in power actually. What makes the person decide which spell, is what kind of damage it does and what they're attacking. They might not want to use a fireball due to it torching the items on the mob, or chill touch due to it shattering the potion they're trying to get etc. Still Rom-ulan approach, just rethought a bit.

Has anyone looked at 'cantrip' type spells? Ones that do those fun little things like ignite the candle, blow the door shut, make a shadow or such etc.
06 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Grimble said:
Maybe this should be a poll, but I'm curious whether there's a preference for fewer skills/spells where they have levels (i.e., the higher the level/proficiency the stronger it is) or for different skills/spells with increasing strength?

Let's take the set of mage fire spells as an example… On a lot of MUDs, there are half a dozen fire related spells of increasing strength. Would it be better to just have one fire spell where the strength increases as the player levels, or puts experience or some other kind of points into it?


My only bit I'd like to add to the discussion is regardless of what you do, please do not hide your mechanics. The value of a spell should be enumerated to a player. This is especially a problem in my opinion in muds which have spells that scale instead of rank.
06 Jul, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
There's no reason spells you acquire early on will scale up to become god-like in power, yet that doesn't mean they're not useful in the right situation.

No spell should become "god-like" relative to other spells, regardless of when you acquire it - my argument is that every spell should scale up to max-level, so that the spells vary in functionality but not in raw power.

quixadhal said:
I guess the idea I'm pushing towards is that the goal should NOT always be superior force. If you can't think of a use for your lower-powered low level spell, you have designed your game so that numbers are more important than gameplay or story, and that's a mistake IMHO.

I'd argue it's the other way around - if the only use you can find for low level spells is for roleplaying-related activities, then that strongly suggests they've not been properly designed and balanced from a game-mechanics perspective. Like it or not, the numbers are (critically) important for balancing a game.

quixadhal said:
I think people in the MUD community are waaaay too obsessed with numbers, firepower, and combat. How many of you have ever played infocom games? You should provide players with opportunities to use their brains once in a while, instead of their stats.

There's absolutely no reason why combat can't require (or reward) thinking. However the majority of muds have a strong emphasis on combat, because that's what the majority of players enjoy - and if combat is a central part of the gameplay, then the mechanics should be designed around it.

While the infocom games may be fun (at least for some players), they are neither open-ended nor multi-player, which makes it difficult to make a direct comparison with muds.

Sandi said:
In a DIKU setting, the reason for obsoleting newbie skills and requiring higher level skills is so players have to spend practices.

They could have done that without obsoleting the old skills.
06 Jul, 2009, shasarak wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
This isn't a very easy question to answer, because it depends very strongly on factors like "is there a difference between spells which doesn't come down to simply 'power'?" and "how does one acquire spells in the first place?"

As an example of how NOT to do it: many years ago I played on MUME, a Middle-Earth-set Diku-derivative. They had 7 or 8 different offensive spells, each of which simply inflicted combat damage. Each spell was learned in the same way as a skill - you acquired a certain number of practice points whenever you went up a character level, and spent these on acquiring spells or skills. You couldn't learn or cast high-level spells unless you were a high-level character. But once you had learned a more powerful spell, any less-powerful spell was rendered completely redundant, which meant you'd wasted the practice points you spent acquiring it. But if you didn't spend the practice points early then a mage would have to get close to maximum level before acquiring any useful offensive capabilities at all!

The reason why this really stuck in my throat was that the game was heavily unbalanced in favour of warriors and against spell-casters, and this was one more example of that. All of a warrior's skills were essentially complementary: improving your dodge and parry skills didn't render your slashing weapons skill redundant; the more warrior skills you mastered, the more powerful you became. So it was only spell-casters who had the problem of practice points spent at low level becoming pointless at high level.

I quite like the Morrowind system. Under that system it is still the case that more powerful spells render less powerful ones redundant, but because the way you acquire spells is by spending gold rather than "practice points", it's not a problem: the resource you spend on the lower-level spells is renewable rather than limited, and you can always acquire more gold. (The nearest equivalent to practice points is spent on improving general magical abilities; you need to spend a lot to be able to cast high-powered spells, but the point cost and skill gain isn't per-spell, it applies across all spells of the same type, e.g. all destructive spells).
06 Jul, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
shasarak said:
This isn't a very easy question to answer, because it depends very strongly on factors like "is there a difference between spells which doesn't come down to simply 'power'?" and "how does one acquire spells in the first place?"

I would argue that the first factor - having differences other than raw power - is absolutely essential if you want to have more than one useful offensive spell.

Here are some of the differences I factor in to my offensive spells:

* Sequence of gestures required to cast.
* Casting time in seconds.
* Range in feet.
* Accuracy bonus.
* Damage bonus (note that some spells inflict no damage at all).
* Damage type/s (heat, cold, shock, mental, poison, etc).
* Bursts on hit or critical (an instantaneous followup attack).
* Single target or area-effect.
* Location/s struck (hits the body, face, legs, internals, etc).
* Direct or indirect spell (dodgable, or mentally resisted).
* Armour bypass bonus.
* Knockdown or knockback on a hit or critical.
* Valid opponent types (eg sentient-only, living-only, etc).
* Damage over time (various types).
* Secondary effects (blindness, slow, teleport-blocking, etc).
* Enhancement option (mana cost and an enhanced spell effect).
06 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not sure that people become great adventurers and wizards in order to light campfires and roast pigs. I think you have a point in general, but if the only purpose of low-level spells is to perform menial tasks, why should I care about them? I don't want to do menial things as a great adventurer…
06 Jul, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
I'm not sure that people become great adventurers and wizards in order to light campfires and roast pigs. I think you have a point in general, but if the only purpose of low-level spells is to perform menial tasks, why should I care about them? I don't want to do menial things as a great adventurer…


.. after all, that's what all the natives are for what what eh? tally ho!

:wink:
06 Jul, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Sandi said:
In a DIKU setting, the reason for obsoleting newbie skills and requiring higher level skills is so players have to spend practices. The "game" is, you have to make an optimum choice between having every skill there is and not being able to practice them to an effective level, and having a limited selection that you can master.


That's one thing that's always bugged me on most MUDs (namely Diku+) I've played… it seemed that your practices were only that useful in the first 5-10 levels of the game… You did your best to max WIL/INT/CON as quick as you could to maximize the Hp/Mp/Practice gain per level, and if you played your cards right, you could have those maxed by level 5, with the rest of your stats maxed by level 10. Then, your trains/pracs became only about throwing at skills and training hp/mp. I'm sure we've all been on countless MUDs where this was the model. I've seen some games vary it by greatly reducing the amount of trains/pracs, but I've found that to be a bit frustrating when you have a bunch of skills that you simply can't access until level 20 or 30… it made the pace of gaining new skills or training stats feel like you were simply crawling.

Another problem with that stat model, in my mind, is that you pigeon hole races/classes into too tight of a niche. It makes your starting or max stats too strongly associated with a specific build, and in my experience, often makes varying your character from the norm extremely difficult if not outright impossible.

The approach we've taken is to raise our stat cap to a normally unobtainable level (255). Through some testing, I found that the 255 is potentially obtainable if you selected the right race with the right merits and had a bit of luck while leveling, and by dumping ALL of your AP (ability points) into WIL (willpower, the stat that among other things, determines AP gain per level). Even then, reaching 255 is difficult, but I digress… What I feel like this has done is made it so that every train/prac (AP) is valuable at every level, not just crucial in the beginning and throw-away at later levels. It forces a choice of dividing between skills and stats, and even being pickier with your skills that you do learn since AP is now a valuable resource. In addition to this benefit, it allows for a lot more customization and variance in the way people build their characters. If I wanted to create a Mage to shun magic and fight hand to hand, it's now feasible since my stats aren't basically pre-defined for me. It makes for the chance for every character to be much more different than what you see on a typical Diku, it makes for a ton more options in build-plan, and I've found that only a small handful of players seem to go about it the same way. We've also added in some retro-active bonuses for increasing VIT (vitality, factors into hp gain) and WIL (willpower, factors into mp) so that way players aren't basically forced to spend the first 50 levels only training VIT and WIL. Of course, someone who does that will have an edge, but it isn't such a make or break situation as is present on other games.

But in any case, my lunch is drawing to a close so I need to go. But, this is the approach we've taken to get around or solve some of the issues that have been discussed.
0.0/49