29 Oct, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
the only ones I would count in the category runter mentioned would be shadowbolt/shadowstream if the damage and effects are the same. The different gestures are simply cosmetic. And sonicblast/sonicwave for the same reasons. The rest are only similar.
29 Oct, 2009, Runter wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
I'm mostly referring to muds where they invent 100 spells and 90% of them random names with spell damage based on the level you train them. If they're not tactically different I see no purpose other than to claim to have more content than you really do.
29 Oct, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Igabod said:
the only ones I would count in the category runter mentioned would be shadowbolt/shadowstream if the damage and effects are the same. The different gestures are simply cosmetic.

I actually have two spells that work like that. One requires you to snap your fingers and then point, the other requires you to point and than snap. Other than that, the spells are indeed identical, and there is no advantage in using one rather than the other.

However if you have both, that means you can snap, point, snap, point, snap, point, and each gesture (after the first) will cast a spell. By having both spells, you're able to attack your opponent with every gesture instead of every second gesture (one spell every 3 seconds instead of every 5).

Both spells are the same, but there is still a clear advantage in having both.

Igabod said:
And sonicblast/sonicwave for the same reasons.

But in order to cast sonicblast you'd need to have a hand free, and someone could break your fingers or chop off your arm to prevent you casting it. On the other hand, a silence spell or broken jaw would prevent you from casting sonicwave. If you had both spells, it would be much harder for people to block your magical abilities - and if an opponent captured you, they would need to both tie you up and gag you in order to neutralise you.

Depending on the specifics of the magic system, you might even be able to cast both spells in parallel (one using speech, the other using gestures).
29 Oct, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
ok well I kinda forgot how in-depth your mud goes, but in most diku based muds you don't have those options. I only mention diku based muds cause that's where the majority of my experience lies.
29 Oct, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
Lost limbs and broken bones aren't that uncommon on Diku derivatives though.

But my general point is that I think it's always a good idea to look at the big picture, rather than judging the skills and spells in isolation. I've had this argument with my players on a number of occasions in regard to balance, too (some players tend to directly compare their individual powers with those of other classes, without considering other factors).
29 Oct, 2009, Koron wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
But how strictly do you define "the same thing"? . . . * Firebolt and icebolt: These do the same thing, except one inflicts heat damage and the other cold damage.

If the mud in question has fully functional damage realms and resists/vulns, the two no longer do the same thing.
Quote
* Fireball and Flamestrike: These do the same thing, except one takes longer to cast and the other has a shorter range.

Again, this is a good distinction if the mud has a clear division between ranges. If your mud's only concept of range is "in the same room vnum," they're effectively identical.
Quote
Icestorm and Iceblast . . . Heal and Harm . . . Sonicblast and Sonicwave . . . etc.

You've provided the differences for these and the above responses hold true here too. Whether they are "different" is a factor of the individual mud's mechanics. Most dikurivatives I've seen don't have code in place for these sorts of distinctions to be important. In that context, they're identical and thus redundant.
29 Oct, 2009, Antron wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, there's been some great things about combat output compression, but back to the main point, the 22 skills I mentioned.

In stock SMAUG, they all have the exact same help file:

<SKILL>
Syntax: <skill>

<skill> is a skill which can only be used once a fight has started, and
can only be used against your primary opponent. If it successfully
lands, it inflicts damage on your opponent.


I agree that hey MIGHT all have different uses, causing blindness, knockdown affects, spell disruption to name a few. But in stock SMAUG, do they?

I'm with Runter that I very much dislike thing added just to bulk up the list. Also I see a lot of MUDs that advertise "25 playable races! 60 classes! level cap of 250!" … The best MUD I have ever played was one called Untamed Lands which had one race, no classes, and no levels.
29 Oct, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
I already gave a reason that's actually rather plausible for why many would exist: if you want progression of power of the skills as you gain levels, but can't parametrize skill damage the way you want (or, you simply don't know how), you could make them separate and have different damage formulas for each. In other words, the reason for having many might be merely technical, and they weren't bothered enough by it to address the underlying technical problem.

That said, some of the skills do have special effects, for example 'bash' as was already mentioned.
29 Oct, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
Koron said:
KaVir said:
But how strictly do you define "the same thing"? . . . * Firebolt and icebolt: These do the same thing, except one inflicts heat damage and the other cold damage.

If the mud in question has fully functional damage realms and resists/vulns, the two no longer do the same thing.

That depends entirely on how strictly you define "the same thing", and is the reason why I asked the question in the first place.

Koron said:
Quote
* Fireball and Flamestrike: These do the same thing, except one takes longer to cast and the other has a shorter range.

Again, this is a good distinction if the mud has a clear division between ranges. If your mud's only concept of range is "in the same room vnum," they're effectively identical.

If the only concept of range is "in the same room" then clearly you have no concept of a "shorter range". My example only makes sense in the context of a mud which differentiates between ranges.

Koron said:
Quote
Icestorm and Iceblast . . . Heal and Harm . . . Sonicblast and Sonicwave . . . etc.

You've provided the differences for these and the above responses hold true here too. Whether they are "different" is a factor of the individual mud's mechanics. Most dikurivatives I've seen don't have code in place for these sorts of distinctions to be important. In that context, they're identical and thus redundant.

You appear to have completely missed the point. The examples I gave represent scenarios where two spells do "the same thing" without being identical. The fact that most stock muds don't support such features really isn't the point. What I was trying to do was see where Runter drew the line.
30 Oct, 2009, Koron wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't think it was I who missed the point. If you'll allow me my cognitive dissonance, your analogy wasn't entirely relevant. You've created a scenerio in which the various skills authentically do have situational uses, whereas the OP provided a list of skills that are in no way requisits of one another and all end with the same result (close range melee damage with a miss percentage that, in my experience, is consistent from one to the other with largely no lasting effect beyond the initial ouch!). Only a single one of them has any real purpose in learning, and that is the one that does the most damage. In this case, most of them all do the same thing. This is especially true if they each belong to your generic warrior class, as stock muds love to do so much.

The skills you listed are different enough from one another that they are all interesting, and they form a diverse pool from which you can derive a combat strategy. In a mud without those kinds of implementations, you have no reason to do anything other than bot the punch skill (or what have you).
30 Oct, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Lost limbs and broken bones aren't that uncommon on Diku derivatives though.

But my general point is that I think it's always a good idea to look at the big picture, rather than judging the skills and spells in isolation. I've had this argument with my players on a number of occasions in regard to balance, too (some players tend to directly compare their individual powers with those of other classes, without considering other factors).


No you're right, lost limbs and broken bones are in fact commonplace on diku's. But them having an effect on spellcasting is not common as far as I can remember.

I realize you were responding to runter before, but the OP was originally asking about Smaug which is basically the same as any other diku derived mud when it comes to this subject. That's why I was responding with diku-based muds in mind. Your mud is a far cry from a stock smaug (as it should be) so using comparisons from your game in this thread isn't exactly a good thing. Though you have provided some interesting things for me to think about in the future when/if I decide to make new skills/spells.
30 Oct, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Koron said:
I don't think it was I who missed the point. If you'll allow me my cognitive dissonance, your analogy wasn't entirely relevant. You've created a scenerio in which the various skills authentically do have situational uses, whereas the OP provided a list of skills that are in no way requisits of one another and all end with the same result

However I wasn't replying to the OP. I was replying to Runter, and even quoted the text I was replying to, in which he said "Personally I have a distaste for games that use multiple skills that do the same thing. As I do for games where a bunch of spells named different things do the same thing." Emphasis mine. "Games", not "stock Diku derivatives".

There is no clear definition of "the same thing", as it depends on your perspective. At one extreme you might argue that any skills or spells that inflict damage (i.e., all offensive abilities) are doing the same thing. At the other extreme you might argue that two functionally identical skills don't do the same thing, because they display different cosmetic messages, or (as per the last example I gave) because they interact differently with other skills. Both views are technically correct, but most people draw the line somewhere between the two.

I have encountered people before (post #... who consider similar skills to be "indistinguishable besides in name". I wanted to know if Runter shared that view, but it seems he doesn't. I generally agree with his view in fact, that each skill should provide a tactical difference (although I do think there are some rare exceptions, situations in which cosmetics alone can provide sufficient reason to have two tactically identical skills).
30 Oct, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Koron said:
I don't think it was I who missed the point. If you'll allow me my cognitive dissonance, your analogy wasn't entirely relevant. You've created a scenerio in which the various skills authentically do have situational uses, whereas the OP provided a list of skills that are in no way requisits of one another and all end with the same result

However I wasn't replying to the OP. I was replying to Runter, and even quoted the text I was replying to, in which he said "Personally I have a distaste for games that use multiple skills that do the same thing. As I do for games where a bunch of spells named different things do the same thing." Emphasis mine. "Games", not "stock Diku derivatives".

There is no clear definition of "the same thing", as it depends on your perspective. At one extreme you might argue that any skills or spells that inflict damage (i.e., all offensive abilities) are doing the same thing. At the other extreme you might argue that two functionally identical skills don't do the same thing, because they display different cosmetic messages, or (as per the last example I gave) because they interact differently with other skills. Both views are technically correct, but most people draw the line somewhere between the two.

I have encountered people before (post #... who consider similar skills to be "indistinguishable besides in name". I wanted to know if Runter shared that view, but it seems he doesn't. I generally agree with his view in fact, that each skill should provide a tactical difference (although I do think there are some rare exceptions, situations in which cosmetics alone can provide sufficient reason to have two tactically identical skills).


Not that I don't understand what you're saying here, but it's assumed he meant smaug games since he posted in the smaug forum. I do get that you weren't technically responding to the OP but still.
30 Oct, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
Igabod said:
Not that I don't understand what you're saying here, but it's assumed he meant smaug games since he posted in the smaug forum. I do get that you weren't technically responding to the OP but still.

Topic drift is a fact of internet life. The discussion moved on to games in general, and that's what I responded to. The same general principles can be applied to any game, including SMAUG - arguing that the specific examples I used are redundant because they don't apply to stock SMAUG is rather missing the point.
30 Oct, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
I get your point, I just didn't really think we had drifted too far away from the smaug topic. Though now that we're on the same page it's pointless to continue discussing that one post. My apologies for the miscommunication and the slight derailment of the thread.
20.0/35