Eeiya, I think this is a good proposal, however I offer some minor suggestions. As others have stated, we should NOT just give the EXP/items to the first person to hit it, because that would encourage players attacking every monster on a map. Instead, it should either be time, or distance based, possibly a mixture of both. For instance, move 15 tiles away from the monster and it returns to "everybody mode." Or, after you have not attacked for a certain amount of time, it will once again return to "everybody mode." We should NOT have it party based (meaning the ENTIRE party has to move away from the monster). Why? Because then there would be large parties dedicated to attacking monsters, and as long as at least one person in the party is close enough to the monster(s), everybody gets EXP. No, that won't work at all. Instead, if even ONE person in the party leaves the area, I think the monster should go back to being a free kill. BUT! Let's say that one player in the party left to go buy an item, but the rest of the party (let's say 4 people) stayed behind. The instant the player leaves, the monster goes back into free mode. However, since the rest of the party is still around, and still attacking it, the monster only stays in free mode for less than a second. Thus, the balance is maintained. I also think that only those within a certain radius of the monster should get EXP (in other words, if you go AFK and don't move, you shouldn't be able to leech off your party which is three maps away.) So yeah, just some minor suggestions, but I approve of it overall.
- Pauan 04:03, 1 January 2007 (CET)
@Direct Combat Skills - 1
Why not base the exp gained on the work done directly? For fighters this would mean exp is calculated based on the hp loss of the enemy after each of the fighter's hits. Healers would gain exp which based on the amount of hp gained by the wounded. Combined with the challenge rating, this could balance out group attacks quite nicely. Healers would be able to heal more if a group is damaged more and so profit from attacking stronger mobs as much as the rest of the team. In this way the game server doesn't need to store a play-by-play of the fight to calculate exp. It could just be stored in a buffer, ready for use when the fight ends (allthough I would not be opposed to levelling during a fight). This would work in the following manner:
- Player attacks with short sword equiped
- Damage to mob is calculated
- Exp for that player is calculated based on the damage done
- Exp is added to Player's sword-skill-exp-buffer (or something like that)
- Rinse, repeat
- Mob dies, exp is added OR Player dies, bye bye exp (if a buffer is used)
Avaniel 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)
- This concept was in fact my first idea. But there were a lot of problems I found when I thought about it thoroughly.
- 1st: When you calculate exp based on enemies hp loss, what happens when the mob is healed? Players could heal mobs intentionally again and again to harvest tons of exp.
- Actually, I would consider this a good tactic. We just have to calculate the numbers so that a player couldn't do it by himself after a certain level. Frankly, I would encourage this form of cooperation. Avaniel 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)
- 2nd: To calculate the exp of healers based on the challenge rating of the mob is also very complicate. What challenge rating should apply when a fighter is attacked by multiple enemies with different challenge ratings? And what is when the combat is over and the healer heals? Which attackers challenge rating does apply then? And what about support spells? How should these be awarded?
- I wouldn't apply a challenge rating to healing spells. Just the hp gained should be efficient. If you are the healer in a group of tanks, you won't get very far if they insist on fighting bunnies. For support spells we'll find a solution eventually (maybe based on magic defense of the mob). Avaniel 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)
- 1st: When you calculate exp based on enemies hp loss, what happens when the mob is healed? Players could heal mobs intentionally again and again to harvest tons of exp.
- 3rd: Exp based on damage done is favoring offensive characters (damage dealers) while defensive characters (tanks) are very unprivileged and receive almost no exp although they are doing a very important job, too. Of course it would be possible to give exp for received damage. But this would encourage people to get hurt as much as possible and not avoiding damage as you would expect them. This would result in very unrealistic behavior.
- We could base this on natural (sans magic) healing. I'll just add a quote: What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger Avaniel 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)
- 3rd: Exp based on damage done is favoring offensive characters (damage dealers) while defensive characters (tanks) are very unprivileged and receive almost no exp although they are doing a very important job, too. Of course it would be possible to give exp for received damage. But this would encourage people to get hurt as much as possible and not avoiding damage as you would expect them. This would result in very unrealistic behavior.
- 4th: The reason why I decided to distribute exp evenly between the skills is that it allows the player to train new skills while still doing the most work with the main skill. This doesn't force the player to use weak skills over and over again while they have much stronger skills. Instead it allows them to still be effective and advance in the game while the training of a new skill is a secondary task.
- If you'd rather be an archer after 4 weeks of being a warrior, you'd beter do the work like the rest of the n00bs :) On a more serious note, I think it will promote character diversity, and multiple characters per player. Avaniel 15:51, 16 February 2007 (CET)
- 4th: The reason why I decided to distribute exp evenly between the skills is that it allows the player to train new skills while still doing the most work with the main skill. This doesn't force the player to use weak skills over and over again while they have much stronger skills. Instead it allows them to still be effective and advance in the game while the training of a new skill is a secondary task.
@"Forgetting" of unused skills
As a side note, I wouldn't decrease a random skill, I would much prefer it if a set of incompatible skills are defined. For instance if a player learns a new spell or gaines a level in a magic related skill, weapon skills decrease. This would work in the following scenario: lets define that weapon skills and magic skills are incompatible; A player could be training his sword skill, gain a level in that, after which his magic skill decreases. Eventually his magic skill will decrease past the minimum level required to use that healing spell he favors. He would then need to make a decision if he really wants to train magic to regain the healing spell. Only to loose the spell once more after the next increase of his weapon skill.
The (gained exp / lossed exp) quotient would have to be calculated to allow only for low level multi-purpose-characters. I would combine this with some exponential exp requirements, which depend on total exp instead of current skill level. This would mean that you could actually ruin a character completely. When the characters exp requirements for a next level of skill are very high and the skill level itself is very low.
In this way a set of compatible skills could allso be defined, which will not decrease. An example which comes to mind is smithing and sword fighting.
Avaniel 12:09, 16 February 2007 (CET)
