Re: CF: Re: Preventing players from repeating quests

[Mark Wedel <mwedel@scruznet.com>]

Raphael Quinet wrote:

> I agree.  However, I think that there is a point at which the player
> should stop getting experience and should be encouraged to start again
> with a new character.  This topic is controversial and I know that
> many players do not like this idea, but IMHO it should not be possible
> to continue improving a character after level 30 (I think that the
> current limit of 110 is way too high).

 I agree.  I think this will become not quite as radical as it seems now if the
advancement slows down a bit (right now, you can get to level 4-5 in about 20
minutes, which is way to fast).  The fewer monster/more questing/solving puzzles
will probably slow things down, but still remain interesting.

> 
> One solution is to hardcode this limit in the code that deals with the
> experience gain.  Another solution is to cut off more and more parts
> of the world as your character solves the quests, so that after a
> while you realize that the best way to continue enjoying the game is
> to start again with another race or class.  Maybe this solution is not
> good, but please post your suggestions if you have better ideas for
> limiting the high-level characters.

 I guess this may depend on the players idea of what crossfire is.

 If people see crossfire as an ever continueing game and more mudlike, forcing
retirement may be unpopular.  If a high level player wants to help so new person
out, show him the area, and sit back and cast spells or other protections, and
that new person doesn't mind/appreciates the help, I don't necessarily have a
big problem with it.

 If people see it as more nethack like - go in, get the stuff, and get out with
the highest score, that is a bit different game. In this model, the score file
could have a 'completed game thing', and have that worth bonus points, and
characters may may retire their characters on their own in that way.

 To me, the main reason to limit to level 30 or so is that I think the game can
be made better if we more narrowly focus what the playing range it.  It will
certainly be easier trying to balance classes/races for 30 levels than 110. 
Same for quests - if the range is 30 levels (and typically assume a +/-10% for
level requirement), it means there should be more maps available for all levels
- a level 25 dungeon could probably be a bit more challenging but still possible
for a level 23 person, but still a reasonable challenge for level 27.  This
narrower range gives map makers something more to focus on.

 Of course, any way you go, map makers or the server admin can change it so
those rules don't apply.  But what I will at least say for those is that you
chose that unsupported configuration - you get to deal with the playbalance
issues or lack of maps you created.  IF someone re-adds support up to level 110,
and says 'at level 70, these two classes are really unbalanced', that is their
problem,  and something I would not be that interested in.

 As a code requirement, a level 30 limit could be fairly easily done.  One way
to do it possibly more interesting is that starting at level 20, double the
requirements needed for each level.  So a player could still gain levels, but
fairly slow (double may be a bit harsh, but may 1.5 or something - not the
fairly linear model it is now).  If a player really tried, they could get that
maximum level, but that would involve spending a lot of time at it (for not a
lot of gains at some point, since 30 would still be the maximum).  So once
again, a player may choose to retire that character instead of still slogging
through at a slow rate.

 Unrelated might be to seperate score from exp, or do away with score all
together.  Usinge exp for score is inaccurate - if anything, the score table
should be reflected as the 'exp' table.
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]