|
Post by Hugh Longshanks on Aug 17, 2008 21:54:26 GMT -6
I suppose. But now there's no point in attacking people of higher levels than you at all.... Did you read my post about the whole "skill types" thing? That's what I'd really like. If we can't have something that works, we can at least have something that's logical...
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Longshanks on Aug 17, 2008 22:09:11 GMT -6
You have a point there.....Just be careful, you could put somebody's eye out with it. But, in all seriousness, the only way of doing it in such a way that it couldn't be exploited WOULD be to just attach an exp modifier to everything. I don't think there's any way of cheating the system if you do that.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Longshanks on Aug 18, 2008 9:45:42 GMT -6
THAT might work.
What if we just made it so the loot you get is always based on the level of your opponent....
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 18, 2008 9:47:30 GMT -6
Ok. Lots of long, well detailed posts, so I'm not gonna comment on everyone's suggestions like I usually do. I did read them all though.
I know for a fact the reason Craig abandoned the exp mod based on levels was due to people battling 'naked' alts at higher levels for the max exp. Which is why I like the idea of people's equipment playing a factor. I agree with Secon that I'd rather have a boring system than one that's easily exploitable, but isn't battling lower level (and therefore likely weaker) opponents to get more wins and therefore exp (since really your wins/losses is all that effects exp right now) a way of exploiting the system?
What I'm thinking after reading through all the discussion is sorta stealing a page from WoE (since I've noticed a lot of suggestions on this site come from there anyways). Basically, all players would have a 'heavy, medium, light' status (names to vary) based on their equipment in respect to their current level. If all your equipment's levels are close to your current level, you'll be Heavy, equip levels a bit lower than your level is Medium, and equipment way below is Light. This will be displayed in your bio and maybe on the nearby list.
So for exp calculation, it will be based on your level and how well equiped your are compared to your opponent. Something like: base exp for a win: 20 modifier for levels: 1 per level difference (max of +/-5) modifier for equip: 2 per step difference (max of +/-4)
So if you're a medium level 10 and you beat a light level 12 {20+2(level difference)-2(equip difference)=20}, you'll get the same xp as if you beat a heavy level 8 {20-2(level difference)+2(equip difference)=20}.
Of course, with the current weapon system where the strength of a weapon does not directly effect it's level, this wouldn't be very effective. So I think I'll just stick with the current exp system for v1. The weapon stuff should get resolved in v2, so hopefully I can make this change then. And it should go without saying (though I'm obviously saying it anyways), there will likely need to be some tweaking of the exact numbers, and what exactly defines heavy, medium, or light.
EDIT: More on quests and stuff coming later.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Longshanks on Aug 18, 2008 10:22:19 GMT -6
Sounds good!
|
|
|
Post by Tintomara on Aug 18, 2008 10:39:43 GMT -6
WoE is War of Empires, another game. If you're interested in it, talk to me about it, and I'll take care of you GoS is more fun, though, but don't tell anyone in WoE that I said that!
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 18, 2008 12:49:22 GMT -6
WoE was fun for a while (I played in a couple ages) but way too demanding of your time if you were in an top empire. GoS is a much more relaxed enviroment, which I prefer.
True, that since everyone can easily exploit the current system, it's less of big deal, but still is an issue. And I'm unsure about xp for losses. Part of me says no, part of me says a steady rate, and part of me says it should be effected by opponent levels/equip as well. My reasoning is 1) I don't like rewarding failure, but I do think people should learn from their mistakes. 2) I think that there should be more of a gain for beating those at a higher level/equip than you, but I don't want it to be such that a loss from someone much higher than you is more beneifical than a win of someone weaker than you. A win should still be better than a loss in my opinion, else no one will ever attack those lower than them which is hard for those on top to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 18, 2008 13:00:21 GMT -6
As far as questing goes, it's something that I've always wanted to add, as the game needs something beyond just battle, battle, upgrade, battle. I don't want it to be something where you can just do a quest whenever, but more like a quest becomes available to you at certain levels. Quest would likely be somewhat procedural, meaning there'd be some set types of quests (fetch, find, battle, etc), but their targets would be more 'randomly' generated so you're not always targeting the same thing to keep things fresher longer.
I've also toyed around with the idea of leader generated quests (either any clan leader or leader of a clan controling a town). I think the idea has some interesting potential (defeat Player X # of times, find Item X and sell it to the shop, etc), but I can't think of a fair way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Jay alAvid on Aug 18, 2008 13:26:28 GMT -6
What if certain Talisman (or weave knowledge) were ONLY available as QUEST rewards? The Hunters, Slayers, Birgette and ?Green Man? (others? new?) could be given out as the reward for certain quests (non-repeatable). Quests would be available at certain levels, and from certain 'people' (NPC characters) in certain cities. Most of that logic would flow in the existing game flow so far.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Longshanks on Aug 18, 2008 13:30:32 GMT -6
Bounties. If I were Leader of a Clan that held a town, and there was some undesirable character I wanted to get rid of, I'd be happy give rewards to anyone who attacked him enough times. EDIT: That's actually a GREAT idea, Jay!
|
|
|
Post by kaldar on Aug 18, 2008 14:28:04 GMT -6
yes .... War of Empires , if you want to rise through the ranks you have to dedicate alot of time and energy. unlike this game where losing some gold to battles isn't really that important , in War of Empires most of what you gain is through producing resources and taking resources from other players. And since your account is running 24/7 it becomes quite stressful trying to keep what you make. I don't reccomend it for anyone who doesn't want to put in the time. I was one of the top rankers in the game and completely burnt myself out trying to stay on top. Not to mention the wife wasn't pleased at all when I would leave to log onto the computer every 10 minutes to hide my stuff from raiders lol. That's why i came back to this game I knew it was much less stressful and more laid back. Many of us went to War of Empires from here a year ago and in fact a group made up of quite a few of us actually won the age in the last round of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 18, 2008 14:37:30 GMT -6
Go Team! Yeah, I was in Ancients Confederation in the age that Headhunt became GO, so we all worked hard to help get him up there. Learned a lot about the intricacies of the game, but like you said, you get burnt out on it. I know all too well about significant other anger when games begin becoming the priority. Yeah, I'm torn on the bounty idea, as it's great to target enemies, but I forsee myself being targeted frequently. Can't have that.
|
|
|
Post by Jay alAvid on Aug 18, 2008 15:02:20 GMT -6
WoE eh..? sounds like a likely next target... It is important to note that the existing 'characters' were clearly to help with the testing of the game. Other than "Jay", I did nothing to promote 1 character over another. - The order of the loop partly dictated the progress of each character. I found it interesting that some characters would get a drop almost every attack, while others would go for a whole day with just 1 or 2 drops. anyways... I felt that the testing warranted the activity, and I am sorry for any hurt feelings. I won't control nearly as many once we go live... Tim has sworn to insure to that
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 18, 2008 15:09:35 GMT -6
Not sure if that was specifically targeted at you, Jay, as I know secon himself has multiple alts, but as for your trickery, I will make things more difficult for you in the future. I had no problems with your methods for testing as it did allow for testing to go more quickly.
Not sure why drops were inconsistant. It's just determined by a random number generator, so it should be random. Hmm.
|
|
|
Post by Jay alAvid on Aug 18, 2008 15:24:10 GMT -6
I agree with Secon. Ranged is clearly the dis-advantaged attack style, but the Slayers is way too powerful to drop below 30? 35?
[edit] The drop-rate could just be the high and low of a bell-curve for the random number generator.. it was not totally consistent. For example, a character that got virtually none through lvl 10, might suddenly get a slayers and a high-end bow. I have 1 character that got 5 Talisman of strength, while another got nothing. [/edit]
|
|