That is exactly the kind of behavior I want to eliminate. There shouldn't be any need for "cookie-cutter" character templates, and there shouldn't be any single "best" set of gear. If there is, the game has failed, IMHO.

One of the keys in developing board games is to create a rule set that allows for a great deal of replay. The min-max route is popular because "winning" a typical MUD usually means taking the most efficient path from level 1 to level N. That path is generally fixed by content that only varies in overall difficulty, not in strategy. The typical MUD design would fail miserably as a board game because it's NOT replayable.

In PvE, if you specialize as a fire mage (for example), you can know ahead of time that certain levels will be difficult because a majority of the content is resistant to fire damage. Thus, you can opt to respec (if allowed), use gear that helps make up the difference, or group with others who bring different skills to the table.

In PvP, you can't prepare ahead of time. If there's no "best" set of gear, and you don't know what you're likely to come up against, I maintain that the numbers muddy the waters more than they help. You can either gear for generic fights, knowing you will be handicapped against anyone who has specialized, OR you can gear for a specialty knowing that you will dominate anyone who is weak against it, usually win against non-spealists, and lose horribly to those who gear against you.

However, I think that makes the game more dynamic and replayable. If you find yourself always on the losing end when you face clerics, you can try to find gear to protect against their type of damage, you can try to fit yourself to do huge amounts of offense that they probably aren't protected against, you can try to do faster attacks with less damage to keep them from healing themselves, or you can just try to avoid clerics and focus on softer (for you) targets.


There's nothing "forcing" them to jump through such hoops, other than their own compulsive need to min-max. If you want to know that weapon A is better than weapon B, just use it as you go about your daily killing and see if you feel like you're doing better, worse, or that it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, keep the one that you can vendor for less, or that's cheaper to repair, or that looks better.

If the player in my game feels the need to go kill 100 rats with each sword to try and figure out which one is "better", then my game has already failed. If I can't make the game interesting and compelling enough to want to play and see the content MORE than spending the time to min-max gear, I should just shut it down and let them play Progress Que....



Yes, but you aren't fighting swarms of rats or mobs of angry peasants. Typically, you're fighting one to three of such things in a room. Not the kind of stuff they write heroic novels about…

You should do your homework before telling KaVir that people don't fight swarms in his game :wink:


I think we've come full circle to some extent. We started this discussion by trying to figure out if numbers were helpful. But really, what you've been arguing for all along is that you don't want people to think too much about optimizing their characters or equipment. I think that is a separate discussion.


I heartily disagree with this, but it might just be a case of what kinds of PvP you've run into so far. It is precisely preparation that differentiates the truly good players from those who have done a little homework. Throw in group PvP, and you have oodles upon oodles of strategic decisions to make, especially if you know even a little bit about your opponents.

In fact, a whole part of the strategy becomes recon and knowledge-gathering – precisely the kind of stuff you said you like so much. :smile: (My point is only that all that is not mutually exclusive with numbers etc.)

I wasn't talking about just his game, although if he does have swarms of mobs, I applaud and approve! :)



Perhaps, but it's also not reliant on numbers. The discussion had drifted into arguing that you had to have numbers in order to be competitive. I disagree. I would say you have to have a sense of what gear works better in certain situations, and that an idea of how much better is useful. However, I don't see why knowing the numbers is so crucial.

Put another way, if I type "compare 'copper short sword' 'iron short sword'", and it spits back "The iron short sword is moderatly more powerful.", does that not tell me what I want to know? If I hit a goblin with it, and that goblin's health drops from 100% to 85%, does that not also tell me what I want to know? Where does it come in that I need to know that the sword does "1d6+1", or that the goblin had "47" hit points?

If I sneak over to your camp and see that you are wearing red dragon scale mail, I now know that it's scale mail, that it's reasonably high level, that it will be resistant to fire damage, and that if I use a piercing weapon that does cold damage, I'd get the best chance to do some extra hurting to you. Knowing the numbers won't help me at all, as I'm going to use the highest level weapon of that description I can get my hands on.

This works fine as long as you have relatively simple axes of data. If all you have is damage dealt and hit points, I agree that it doesn't really matter as long as you can linearly compare your weapons, and be absolutely sure that one weapon being better than another is a claim that is "True".

But how do you compare weapons like this? What is better, a 6-18 sword that you can swing very quickly, or a 11-13 sword that you swing very slowly? Both average out at 12, but if you miss a lot, you might want to hit more often at the risk of doing less damage. If however you are very good at connecting with your sword, maybe you should get the slower one and guarantee higher minimum damage.

So we see that throwing in a relatively simple extra measure as weapon speed (implemented as, say, hits per round) straight comparison becomes very difficult. Note that these factors have little or nothing to do with the person you're fighting. Now you have to go back to empirical testing again to work out the subtle differences in the weapons.

Add in things like variable resistances, weapon damage types, armor reacting differently to different damage types, and the amount of data you need to gather to get a reasonable picture becomes daunting. Numbers provide a very simple proxy for that whole process.

The entire ice/fire/cut/bash/slash thing never made much sense to me because it tends to completely unbalance combat, especially the way it was implemented on rom muds. You either win or lose, there's no fun in that, even if you're the one doing the ass kicking.

What really should be done when creating a combat system is writing it down in text first, something like a player's hand book, and implement it afterwards. This would also be easier to share, modify, and get input on. Most combat systems are randomly added to, and by the time you've hit 10K lines of code nobody can make sense of it.

I'm not suggesting there should be (indeed I've argued the above two points myself on many occasions). But there will always be certain combinations of abilities and items that are more effective than others - and the competitive player will try to discover such combinations.


The information gives a clear competitive edge. If you don't want to appeal to competitive players, you shouldn't be creating a competitive mud. Know your audience.


If you're deliberately adding features which your target audience hates, then your game has already failed.


In my game you are. I do also have singular rats and peasants, but they aren't there to pose a challenge (because they don't pose any at all). They're there to make a point.


I've included two swords from my mud. Which would your "compare" command consider to be the most powerful, and why?

You examine a steel rapier.
——————————————————————————-
The rapier has a three-foot double-edged blade designed for both thrusting and
slashing.  It is light and fast, with a steel basket to protect the hand, but
the blade itself is relatively fragile.  It can be used in a two handed style
(with the second hand placed behind the back to improve balance) or combined
with a second weapon.  It is particularly effective when used with a main
gauche in the other hand.
——————————————————————————-
Skill type : Swords (also benefits from the Fencing Mastery talent).
Usage      : One or two handed (see 'help assist'), but cannot be thrown.
Size/reach : Adds two encumbrance, and has a melee reach of three feet.
Material   : Steel (90% durability).
Techniques : 105 (0 mounted, 78 style-specific and 9 behind the scenes).
Good styles: Viper, Crane, Hawk, Eagle and Hydra (see 'help style').
Weaknesses : This weapon can be caught by swordbreakers and tiger claws.
Special    : Some attacks reduce opponent's armour by 25% (see 'help bypass').
——————————————————————————-
Condition  : Seventy-five (out of seventy-five).
Attack     : +12 (+12, +11, +10 or +2 depending on condition).
Defence    : +12 (+12, +11, +10 or +2 depending on condition).
Damage     : +3 (+3, +3, +2 or +1 depending on condition).
Requires   : Brawn 4, Grace 6 and Size 5 (-8 Attack, -6 Defence).
Two handed : Brawn 4, Grace 5 and Size 5 (no penalty - see 'help penalties').
Cooldown   : 3, 4, 5 or 6 seconds, depending on wielders encumbrance.
Protects   : Hands.
Soak/Absorb: 25%/2 cut, 25%/2 stab, 25%/2 crush and 0%/0 poison.
Soak/Absorb: 0%/0 heat, 0%/0 cold, 0%/0 shock and 0%/0 mental.
——————————————————————————-

You examine a bronze broadsword.
——————————————————————————-
The broadsword has a heavy three-foot double edged blade, designed primarily
for slashing.  It has a wide range of available fighting techniques, catering
to both the beginner and the expert.
——————————————————————————-
Skill type : Swords (also benefits from the Straight Sword Mastery talent).
Usage      : One handed, and cannot be thrown.
Size/reach : Adds three encumbrance, and has a melee reach of three feet.
Material   : Bronze (80% durability).
Techniques : 66 (0 mounted, 43 style-specific and 6 behind the scenes).
Good styles: Viper, Crane, Hydra, Mantis and Hawk (see 'help style').
——————————————————————————-
Condition  : One hundred and fifty (out of one hundred and fifty).
Attack     : +8 (+8, +6, +4 or +1 depending on condition).
Defence    : +8 (+8, +6, +4 or +1 depending on condition).
Damage     : +12 (+12, +10, +8 or +5 depending on condition).
Requires   : Brawn 6, Grace 4 and Size 5 (no penalty - see 'help penalties').
Cooldown   : 5, 5, 5 or 5 seconds, depending on wielders encumbrance.
——————————————————————————-

David and KaVir both appear to be arguing in favor of numbers as a means to quickly determine the "best" gear, both by comparison between what you have and what you see, and against some ideal conceptual "best".


I see this as an apples vs. oranges argument. I place two fruits on the table in front of you, a red apple and an orange. Which is better? Well, for myself, at this moment, I'd say the orange is better because I'm a bit thirsty. If I'd just drank a cup of coffee, perhaps the apple would be better as it's not as sweet. Obviously, if one of them appeared bruised or otherwise inferior, I'd take the other.

Which one is better depends on the player and the situation. Seeing all the numbers on the items might give you more information, but is it more useful information?



I'd argue that if such combinations do exist across the board (not in specialized circumstances), that's a hint that some rebalancing is needed. Any combination of skills and gear should be counterable by some other combination of skills and gear of comparable level/value/difficulty-to-obtain. If there's an "I win" button that forces the whole player base to adopt it, it's a sign that something is overpowered.


Hmph. If my target audience is that set in their ways, I need a new target audience.


Sure, I'll take the bait. :)

The output would depend a great deal on the character doing the compare. First of all, one weapon has prerequisites, so if the player can't use it, the other one automatically wins. Next, I see each has a mastery skill that adds to the weapon's power in some undefined way… so if the character has either of those mastery skills, it would weight the matching item more heavily. Likewise for styles.

The rapier appears to benefit from a wider range of techniques, which might be a plus since it implies (again, not knowing the system) that it would be useful in a wider range of situations.

One weapon also doubles as hand protection, so if the character doesn't have better hand protection already, that would be a point towards the rapier.

The rapier is, of course, a faster and less damaging weapon. I don't know how your combat system works, so I can't easily guess how much speed trumps damage, or how the character's stats affect things – but if I pretend it works like D&D, I'd look at the character's stats and weight a high dexterity towards the faster weapon, and a high strength towards the broadsword.

Now, because I see numbers here, I'm compelled to wonder about other numbers to try and complete the comparison. A +5 to damage might be a big boost if a typical opponent has 50 hit points. It might not matter so much if they have 500 hit points. Presumably, the game itself can know what a typical opponent for the character's level range would be like, so it can offer up that data to rank the comparison of bonuses. If we're in the 50 camp, the broadsword's +5 damage in bad condition will probably trump the better attack/defense ratings of the rapier.

Finally, the material. The steel sword would probably be worth more in re-sale, holds up a bit better, but is probably more expensive to repair. It looks like the broadsword keeps more of its damage bonus when damaged, than the rapier keeps its bonuses to attack and defense. The condition ranges are also bigger on the broadsword (I assume), meaning it will probably last longer in a damaged state. So that seems to balance out. A point to the broadsword for being useful longer, and a point to the rapier for being more valuable.

That's what my compare command would evaluate when deciding what to spit out at you. For the character I have in my head while typing this, the rapier would be the correct choice – but that assumes the game mechanics work the way I'm picturing them. They almost certainly don't, so I might be way off base. :)

Thank you, BTW. I do enjoy seeing a complex combat system, and it's fun to ponder how much the various parts of it interact.

Well, why are you asking me? You are the one who said that a linear comparison suffices :wink:

"Put another way, if I type "compare 'copper short sword' 'iron short sword'", and it spits back "The iron short sword is moderatly more powerful.", does that not tell me what I want to know?"

But anyhow, yes, the information is useful. I already showed how you can make a useful conclusion from the simple example I gave based on your general combat accuracy.

Not exactly. I'm in favour of revealing numbers as a means to quickly and accurately determine the pros and cons of items you possess.

As well as giving players the information they need to play competitively, such an approach allows me to balance my game through transparency rather than through obscurity; if the players are using a variety of different weapons, despite knowing the full attributes of each, then that suggests they are well balanced. If the attributes were hidden, players might end up using inferior weapons simply because they didn't know any better.

Thus it might be more accurate to say that I'm in favour of numbers as a means to ensure that there isn't any "best" gear.



I think we're talking at cross purposes here. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that (to give an example) a swordsman shouldn't be more effective than an axeman or an archer. But that's not what I'm disagreeing with - what I'm saying is that there will always be better and worse ways to create a swordsman, or an axeman, etc. You cannot realistically expect to make every possible combination of abilities and gear equally viable, nor would you want to.

Here are a few examples of what different swordsman builds might include in my mud:

1. Fencing Mastery, Expert Duellist, Sure Footed, Evasion, Instinctive Dodge.

2. Large Sword Mastery, Expert Two-Handed Parry, Endurance, Armour Proficiency, Heavy Armour Expert.

3. Samurai Blade Mastery, Ambidextrous, Two-Weapon Fighting, Mind Over Matter, Iron Will.

4. Curved Sword Mastery, Berserker Rage, Cleave, Small Shield Mastery, Rapid Shield Block.

5. Straight Sword Mastery, Assassin Training, Focused Blow, Pierce, Great Pierce.

6. Magically Gifted, Windborn Adept, Ethereal Blade Mastery, Enhanced Deflection, Strong Magical Shields.

I know you don't know what each talent does, but you can get a rough idea from the names, enough I think to reasonably assume that each of the above 6 swordsmen could be equally viable in combat - even though they'd play in different ways. But a swordman could in theory also include combinations like this:

1. Fencing Mastery, Smash, Great Smash, Large Shield Mastery…

2. Large Sword Mastery, Expert Two-Handed Parry, Ambidextrous, Two-Weapon Fighting…

3. Dagger Mastery, Expert Knife Fighter, Thrown Dagger Expert (but he only fights with a sword).

4. Armour Proficiency, Heavy Armour Expert (but he doesn't wear any armour).

I don't think it's necessary to make those on-par with the earlier 6 examples.


It would also depend on the player, and what exactly they're looking for in a weapon - I've seen players redesign their entire characters around a new piece of equipment before. It's not really possible to judge something like that in isolation.

And I'm insisting that numbers are more realistic. :biggrin:

More realistic for a skilled person, anyway. And it's not a numbers vs words argument, it's a granularity argument. Show me a list of 100 words referring to your health that everyone will place in the same order, and I'll stop displaying percentages. Maybe you're a couch potato. Maybe you're one of those women that can be 6 months pregnant and not know it. Maybe my system would not seem realistic to you because you can only imagine what's like to be healthy. Maybe I'd have more players if I pandered to the general public's ignorance.

That last one's pretty definite. :)

Resurrection!!

I just wanted to point out that in the words vs numbers argument, the idea is that words are meant to be vague and not give a definite number. Percentages are pretty definite. The word version would not be 100 words but just a couple that change when they need to.

Perfect = 100% - 90%
Fine = 89% - 70%
Hurt = 69% - 50%
Bleeding = 49% - 20%
Dying = Less than 20%