19 Sep, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 81st comment:
Votes: 0
Deimos said:
As I haven't actually finished the game yet, whether or not this will be my downfall is YTBD, but I wouldn't do it any other way. It just doesn't make sense otherwise.

That's kind of an interesting thing to say. :wink:
19 Sep, 2010, Chris Bailey wrote in the 82nd comment:
Votes: 0
I think the progression system that I have enjoy the most was in a mud named Quest for Faerun. You chose your race and first class and then leveled up traditionally until level 100. At that time you would remort, choose another class and start over at level 1. You kept all of your equipment and skills from the previous class but the effectiveness of your equipment and skills are based on your current level. So your useful spells were still very useful but didn't last nearly as long, and you didn't have the mana to cast them often. Your powerful sword was still more useful than the average starting gear, but you couldn't insta-kill mobs your level. It had several classes with race and alignment restrictions. You had to choose carefully so you could get the classes you really wanted. It made for some interesting combinations in the end of the game, where it turned into difficult team based quests and a lot of pvp.
19 Sep, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 83rd comment:
Votes: 0
Rerolling is a concept that's been in a lot of MUDs for quite some time; I cant comment on that iMUD specifically as Ive not played it, but I find it tends to make things tedious when you have to bash all the same stuff to get to top level, then you have to do all that AGAIN four or five times just to get the good stuff.

Maya/Rudha
19 Sep, 2010, Jhypsy Shah wrote in the 84th comment:
Votes: 0
Like the jail idea, seems like it could be neat to have different levels of security for different levels of players that get caught and need to bust out..which could open up some RP potential. Maybe a quest to actually smuggle something into the jail could be neat, hehe..

Seems like there was a mud where if ya witnessed something illegal (such as the murder of a citizen mob or player), then there was a way to record that, then ya could go to the courthouse and report it or just try on the spot justice after recording the crime..it was interesting but i can't think of the name of it.

I like grumny's building ideas. Seems like some muds make looted guard's gear and known citizen's gear, unsellable in most local shops. Seems like a cutthroat black market could be cool.
19 Sep, 2010, Grumny wrote in the 85th comment:
Votes: 0
Black market shops would be really cool, I think. I once played a mud long long ago, my first mud actually. In this mud, you could go to the back door of the shop that sold meat pies. The baker would buy corpses from low level types. It added flavor to the game as well as pocket money to needy newbies.

Things like that would be great. These kinds of shops add depth to a game and often they don't require a great deal of work.
19 Sep, 2010, Jhypsy Shah wrote in the 86th comment:
Votes: 0
hehe, that's funny. Seems like a nice racket for necromancers, physician students and monsters incognito.

would a give trig work for corpses in genral? Might be neat to have a mad doctor look for specific ones, hehe..
19 Sep, 2010, Grumny wrote in the 87th comment:
Votes: 0
Oh,?a give trigger would probably work. I haven't used mobprogs much. In this particular MUD I'm sure it was hardcoded. This was way back in oh, 1994, before I started sliding down the merc/ROM branches of the DIKU tree. I'm not even sure if ROM had been released at that point.
20 Sep, 2010, Jhypsy Shah wrote in the 88th comment:
Votes: 0
I think there was rom back then, seems like I used it in 95 or so. Reason I remember is that one of my uncles had built an area on one then and I had gone back years later and revisited his area after he died in rl..it was still there.
23 Sep, 2010, Bobo the bee wrote in the 89th comment:
Votes: 0
jurdendurden said:
First I have a no_loot item flag. Second, when a thief steals an item of sufficient weight/size, the player will see a message something like, "Your belongings shift in your pack.", or "Your belongings feel a bit lighter…", which is based on an intelligence/wisdom check.


To the first, a caution: builders have a nasty habit to see flags like "no_loot" and put it on all their items, to make them more awesome for people to get. If everything is no loot … well, I'm sure you understand, if only I could say that about all admin. To the second, it's an interesting idea but it does present its problems. You might not have them, but applying them to a limited PK mud (which is what I have in mind for mine) I run into this problem: how easilly can a person tell if person X was the one who stole their stuff? How easy is it if you're standing in the middle of a field? Do you place IC-but-not-code restraints on how you might put 1-and-1 together OOCly?

I guess the best way to explain is an example: say I'm sitting in the square of the main town, just minding my business. I suddenly see that message and – Oh noes, mah lewt is gone!! I look around the room and notice the only players in the room are a fellow Mage and a Thief, and an understood or visible presence of many NPCs. I immediately OOCly know that it was the thief who stole the items and, if I'm the type of player, I will take that OOC knowledge IC in an instant, or immediately start making plans to get back at that player. I would imagine that most players would take the knowledge of a known thief OOCly to subtly influence IC decisions, even if not intentional. You might not go back to that city while that player is online. You might lock away all your items just while that player is online (actually, that's a good response to finding a thief). But at the worst you'll either immediately call the player out on it and demand to be given a chance to PK the character in question or, if there are rules against it, you'll start working on fabricating a reason to do it.
23 Sep, 2010, Bobo the bee wrote in the 90th comment:
Votes: 0
One approach to level-restricted items that I've seen as I've scanned over the comments here is to reduce effectiveness of items based on level differential. I'm a fan of the idea behind this system but I've yet to play a MUD that implements this in a way I like. One mud allows me to wear items that are up to 5 levels above my own (on a 1-100 level system) and to wear them, but I won't get any of the affects off of them. AC, Damage, etc. apply as normal. But I can't buy items higher level than me, period, and sometimes the "5 level rule" seems to not work, especially if the item was built by a certain builder which leads me to believe there's a flag restricting this. It doesn't make a lot of sense, from a code-consistency viewpoint (which I blame the fractured admin staff of the mud for) or from an IC viewpoint when the MUD is RP-Enforced and "tries" to be as realistic as possible.

In the end, with a level-based system with no remorts I feel like you almost have to have some sort of restriction on how powerful you have to be to utilize more powerful items. Games tend to agree as every single popular RPG I've played employs the strategy, but single-player games have the advantage of simply limiting when you can find these items and larger MMO's aren't full-IC experiences so they can get away with just explaining "You're not high enough level yet! Sux!"

The initial idea I've had when tackling this issue is to make all items wearable and useable by characters of all levels. (On a 200-level, no remort based system). However, and this goes to the reduced effectiveness idea, I'm planning on having two restrictions on these things:

  • Armor and Weapons, "material-based strengths" are going to have skills/talents/whatever that control how adept you are at using the items you have. The thought is – and yes, it is a stretch of reality, no questions about it – is that as a crappy level 5 warrior you aren't going to be able to use that super-awesome Adamantine Sword very well. You're going to be clumsy with it, you're not going to be able to fully utilize those strengths, yaddayadda. You just suck too much for a better sword to do much to help you. I hope to make it so a fancier sword than your "skill" allows for simply counts as a "your-level" weapon (at level 5 let's say this is Steel) with the equivalent of a "Sharp" or "Weightless" flag on it, which will be obtainable in many other easier ways. Using weapons above your ability will also cause them to fall into disrepair much faster, so the upkeep of using a Super-Mithril-PWNSword from level 1 that your friend gave you is going to be worth, in currency and lack of headaches, far, far less than just using what I want you to use.
  • For Magic-based abilities (wands, scrolls, potions, weapon enchants, etc) I have the advantage of being able to design my own magic system for, since the world is 100% original content. I'm simply explaining it as even "applied" magic like these affects have to draw upon the strength of the actual user to be initiated. That is to say there's going to be a stat for non-magical classes that notes just how magical they can get. Since this stat will increase through level advancement you won't have a high number, initially, period so that Flaming Sword just won't get hot for you, noob. The other point of doing this is to make it so that prestige classes like "Berserker" can't get as high on the enchant-drug as "Spell Blades" and so on and so forth. But that's a different discussion.
23 Sep, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 91st comment:
Votes: 0
Jhypsy Shah said:
Like the jail idea, seems like it could be neat to have different levels of security for different levels of players that get caught and need to bust out..which could open up some RP potential. Maybe a quest to actually smuggle something into the jail could be neat, hehe..


The problem with this is that it is incredibly difficult to balance, and it tends to be exceedingly easier for certain classes to circumvent compared to others (I'm looking at you, mages with plane shifting spells! Teleportation! And … well most magic really.) Of course you can just make it so those spells don't work .., but then it either becomes A: insurmountable or B: an arms race between players and admin, neither of which I'm that keen on personally.

Elvenblade's weapon system - which I'm incidentally coding as I write this - basically has STAT requirements rather than LEVEL ones and I find it a more realistic and meaningful distinction; wizards of a high level may still not be able to lift the mighty Sword of the Collosus or something, but a fighter type probably could. As well, this allows players of a lower level to try to find buffs or enchanted items to be able to wield an item, instead of having to wait an artificially-lengthened amount of time before they can use it.

Maya/Rudha
23 Sep, 2010, Bobo the bee wrote in the 92nd comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
Elvenblade's weapon system - which I'm incidentally coding as I write this - basically has STAT requirements rather than LEVEL ones and I find it a more realistic and meaningful distinction; wizards of a high level may still not be able to lift the mighty Sword of the Collosus or something, but a fighter type probably could. As well, this allows players of a lower level to try to find buffs or enchanted items to be able to wield an item, instead of having to wait an artificially-lengthened amount of time before they can use it.


If we're going for realism then the problem with this comes in when a "stat" might not be a viable way to distinguish between more powerful weapons. "Heavier" doesn't really equate to "better" (quite the opposite, in many cases, which is why I decided not to go this route myself). Is Mithril better than Steel, but lighter? Then why would it require more strength? That sort of thing. Though, the way around that might be to have a Strength and Agility requirement, which is the way a few MMO's I've played have had a class-system without you ever clicking on "I want 2 be mage!" Personally, though, I've never been a high fan of the system but the places I've played have had substantial followings, especially in PK.
23 Sep, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 93rd comment:
Votes: 0
Bobo the bee said:
Rudha said:
Elvenblade's weapon system - which I'm incidentally coding as I write this - basically has STAT requirements rather than LEVEL ones and I find it a more realistic and meaningful distinction; wizards of a high level may still not be able to lift the mighty Sword of the Collosus or something, but a fighter type probably could. As well, this allows players of a lower level to try to find buffs or enchanted items to be able to wield an item, instead of having to wait an artificially-lengthened amount of time before they can use it.


If we're going for realism then the problem with this comes in when a "stat" might not be a viable way to distinguish between more powerful weapons. "Heavier" doesn't really equate to "better" (quite the opposite, in many cases, which is why I decided not to go this route myself). Is Mithril better than Steel, but lighter? Then why would it require more strength? That sort of thing. Though, the way around that might be to have a Strength and Agility requirement, which is the way a few MMO's I've played have had a class-system without you ever clicking on "I want 2 be mage!" Personally, though, I've never been a high fan of the system but the places I've played have had substantial followings, especially in PK.


I've never been a fan of artificial restrictions, they're the bandages of poor game design to me. I would rather a system that instead of relying on administrative attention to detail or artificial restrictions such as level; when it comes to weapons restrictions seem entirely insensible - as I said earlier in this thread anyone can try to pick up a gun or a weapon, but they're probably going to suck at it if they're not proficient with it; and they may not be able to lift something if it's a wee bit to heavy.

My weapons system assigns basically four stats to the weapons, though the names might change - 'accuracy' which roughly generalises how precisely the average person can strike with it, 'heft' which determines how much of the weapons weight you can actually put behind the blow, 'power' which is essentially the damage attribute, and 'balance' which determines how quickly the average person strike with it, as a poorly balanced weapon would be awkward to use.

The weight of an item is checked entirely independant of the weapon; indeed it is checked for every single object a player attempts to pick up. You can lift up to a certain weight determined by your strength, then whether you need one or two hands is also determined by strength. You can attempt to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand and get away with it, if you have high strength, though you'll suffer penalties for how awkward that is to wield.

The thrust of this as far as my design goes is in the same vein as my MUD design philosophy goes in general: rather than artificially restrict players from doing things, I am much more of the opinion that instead I'll just penalise people for doing things that are nonsensical or difficult to do. I've always tried to give freedom to players as much as I can; it makes for a much greater difficulty to balance the game, but that's the cost of making a more open and to me - and hopefully others! - fun game. But different people have different things they enjy and different design philosophies.

Maya/Rudha
23 Sep, 2010, Bobo the bee wrote in the 94th comment:
Votes: 0
Alright, I definitely think my different understanding was more a failure to communicate (worded like that because I do so love channeling my inner Major Payne). Your idea and mine are virtual co-existers, with mine a bit more simplistic in that it holds skill values for all weapons, with "Inept" being the worst and meaning that you might very well cut yourself in the process of using it as well as having a more static lowering of accuracy, damage, etc. Though hearing your idea makes me want to add a "difficulty" slider to some weapons: using a flail is hard even for someone who knows how to use a weapon well, from what I've heard. It'd be difficult to do with "balance" in mind, though, because .. awh, hell, I don't even want to think about it! No difficulty slider.

But yes, I'm a fan of what your explanation conveys, though I do have a question: do you always penalize a person a set and impactual(woo words) amount, or do you give those inexperienced with a weapon a one-in-a-million chance to be as amazing as someone with a high specialization? If we're aiming for pure realism, then I think you'd have to include that chance, but I'm on the inclination to deny those unskilled the luck of the Irish for the sole purpose of balancing: I don't even want to think of the headache that would come from hearing level 100 Superbob GodSlayer be taken out by a lucky crit by level 50 Fireball SwordFailer.
23 Sep, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 95th comment:
Votes: 0
I think the idea of a difficulty to use thing wouldn't be a bad idea if it was implemented properly, and you mentioning it makes me want to consider that. I don't think I'd have an arbitrary 'difficulty stat would work, but perhaps a function f the stats of the weapon and the stats of the individual.

Maya/Rudha
23 Sep, 2010, Bobo the bee wrote in the 96th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
I think the idea of a difficulty to use thing wouldn't be a bad idea if it was implemented properly, and you mentioning it makes me want to consider that. I don't think I'd have an arbitrary 'difficulty stat would work, but perhaps a function f the stats of the weapon and the stats of the individual.


I'm just torn as to how to "balance" it properly. My general thought is if a weapon is harder to master, it should have more advantages than one that is easier. But if I do that, I'd expect players to just flock to the harder weapons for the longer-term gain, and I'm unsure of a way to make that fundamentally "fair" for all weapons across the board. I might just create the difficulty value for weapons and fit them somewhere into the expanded idea of the basic Rock-Paper-Scissors fighting idea that I have and just give people the finger if they complain about it, because I totally know more than them, and stuff. Iz cuz I'm admin.
23 Sep, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 97th comment:
Votes: 0
Bobo the bee said:
But if I do that, I'd expect players to just flock to the harder weapons for the longer-term gain, and I'm unsure of a way to make that fundamentally "fair" for all weapons across the board.


That presumes that all weapons should be 'fair' - which requires us to define fair. For me it is not 'unfair' to have a weapon be more powerful damage-wise, if there is something that counterbalances that. Although I do agree that simply requiring more skill would not be the best way to do that; rather I would probably have a greater consequence for failing to use the weapon properly, that would be mitigated by that higher level of skill. That would give players some pause before sinking everything into the weapon. Imagine using one of those spiked-ball-on-a-chain kinds of flails ending up in your face! Grisly!

Maya/Rudha
24 Sep, 2010, Bobo the bee wrote in the 98th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
I would probably have a greater consequence for failing to use the weapon properly, that would be mitigated by that higher level of skill. That would give players some pause before sinking everything into the weapon. Imagine using one of those spiked-ball-on-a-chain kinds of flails ending up in your face! Grisly!


I'm approaching this with the mindset of "players who reach the highest level of mastery with a weapon will never make mistakes swinging it around" else I'd think that capable of fitting what I want. Pretty much I'm aiming for, in the exact same skilled hands, any two weapons to deal the same amount of average damage over time against an enemy that you miss half the time.. Some weapons will be better against different enemies – that dagger that's effective at slashing at pesky Fae really won't be as good as the Axe that'll crush the feet of a Hill Giant – but that still allows me to give each weapon certain advantages and disadvantages against certain situations. It's just important to make sure those situations come up enough to not make weapons obsolete.
24 Sep, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 99th comment:
Votes: 0
Oh, as they gain skill I'd probably just do a different lookup table for mistakes, ie "mistakes wielding a flail when untrained" table would be a little more … fun to watch for the uninvolved than say "mistakes wielding a flail when a grandmaster" table.

In fact I'll probably do something like that; "critical failures" to borrow the D&D parlance would be rare, but a possibility. Keeps things interesting. I'll probably keep them from being fatal, but enough that you'll think twice before using things you don't really know how to use.

Maya/Rudha
24 Sep, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 100th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
Elvenblade's weapon system - which I'm incidentally coding as I write this - basically has STAT requirements rather than LEVEL ones and I find it a more realistic and meaningful distinction

I use stat requirements as well - Brawn (physical strength), Grace (agility and dexterity) and Size (physical height and build). Weapons have a second set of stat requirements for two-handed use, if they're intended to be used that way (any weapon can be used either one or two handed, but most are much better when used one way or the other).

If you don't meet the requirements, then you suffer a penalty to attack (for Grace and Size), defence (for Grace) and damage (for Brawn and Size), with the severity of the penalty based on how far off the requirements you are.

I don't vary the stat requirements for magic items though, they're always based on the basic item type. However as magic doesn't exist in the real world, there's quite a bit of creative freedom for coming up with ways to restrict it without having to worry about being "realistic". In my case, I find the "magic radiation" approach works very well both mechnically and thematically.

Bobo the bee said:
I'm just torn as to how to "balance" it properly. My general thought is if a weapon is harder to master, it should have more advantages than one that is easier. But if I do that, I'd expect players to just flock to the harder weapons for the longer-term gain, and I'm unsure of a way to make that fundamentally "fair" for all weapons across the board.

If "harder to master" is represented by the need for additional abilities, and players are restricted in how many abilities they can have, then by mastering the better weapon they're using ability slots that could otherwise have been spent on enhancing other aspects of their character (such as armour use, riding ability, endurance, etc).

Rudha said:
That presumes that all weapons should be 'fair' - which requires us to define fair. For me it is not 'unfair' to have a weapon be more powerful damage-wise, if there is something that counterbalances that.

Agreed - I try to give each weapon its own pros and cons. The spiked-ball-on-a-chain can inflict brutal damage, and it's hard to block - but it provides little in the way of defence, and has a tendancy to bounce back and hit the wielder on occasion. A higher skill will reduce the frequency of hitting yourself, but there's always a chance of it happening.

Players complain about it sometimes, but I tell them that if they want the penalty removed it'll need to be offset against something else, such as lowering the damage or making it easier to block. They're not so keen on that ;)

I have a number of "Combat Specialty" talents that unlock special abilities for certain weapons, so another option might be to add a talent that negates the chance of a botch - players would then have to sacrifice one of their talent slots to buy off the disadvantage.
80.0/124