Re: CF: Re: Preventing players from repeating quests

[Mark Wedel <mwedel@scruznet.com>]

Steven Lembark wrote:
>
> then we had better make magic users a whole lot more
> survivable at lower levels.  other problem is that the
> low-level stuff gets pretty boring pretty quickly as
> a magic user -- you only know two spells so you get to
> cast them over and over and ...

 If we add guilds, then this could play into it more.  You join a guild when you
start your character. You can return to that guild, and maybe it will do some
analysis and give you something free if you deserver it (ie, a level 5 mage that
knows 2 spells might get another one or two spells free from the guild)  WE
would have to think of things for other guilds to give.

 One thing this does do is make it really important on what guild you join.  If
you are playing a mage, you really should join the mage guild for some such
benefits.

 Alternatively, change spellbook costs some.  Low level spellbooks should
perhaps be quite cheap, but the higher ones much more expensive than they are
right now.  One problem  right now is that spell books are quite costly, making
it difficult for mages to get new spells.

> 
> alternative is to:
> 
>         (a) spread out the spells over, say, 50 - 75 levels.
>         (b) start pusing people to design 50+ level maps.
> 
> so, rather than worry about whether people are rising to fast
> just make sure that there is someplace for them to go.

 As I think I said before, there are a few reasons I don't really like the
above:

 1) There are only so many spells to spread out.  If you get a spell at level
50, and don't get another spell to level 55, why not just making getting those
intervening 5 levels more difficult?
 2) The other issue is map design and balance.  IF the level range is narrow, it
should be easier to balance maps and design more maps for that valid level.

 IF a level 60 person is not that much different than a level 50 person, and
both can do the same maps at roughly the same difficulty, then what is really
the difference of those 10 levels one has over the other.

 The counter is that if level 60 is considerably more powerful than level 50
(such that a level 50 dungeon is not of interest, and a level 60 dungeon would
kill the level 50 person), it goes back to #2 above - you need a lot more
dungeons to cover all the possible levels.

 Note that slower advancement is unrelated to maximum level.  Even if things
remain at the current advancement pace with lots of hack/slash, I think there
should be a max level of around 30.  If advancement is slowed down, it is just
likely that going above the maximum level would be as much of an issue.


> 
> --
>  Steven Lembark                                   2930 W. Palmer St.
>                                                  Chicago, IL  60647
>  lembark@wrkhors.com                                   800-762-1582
-
[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]