Wear Location System
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    mudlab.org Forum Index -> Design
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tyche



Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 176
Location: Ohio, USA

PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2005 10:51 am    Post subject: Wear Location System Reply with quote

I was cleaning out my closet and came upon the following document. This is an old idea/post that which I had incorporated parts into a ROM, and later someone informed by e-mail they found some of it useful and had incorporated into their ROT. I've tried to edit it a bit, and if it makes no sense well okay. Wink

=== Specifications for Wear Location System ===

There is no player inventory. All objects are either worn or carried within containers worn on a character. There are no limits with regard to the numbers of items any character may carry, however there is an effective weight limit. All objects have a weight and a volume. The weight is a real weight measure in pounds (or could be kilograms or any unit you prefer). The weight a character can carry with no penalties is based on their strength and size. A character may carry more than this with a greater penalties on the effectiveness in combat and other actions. Object volume is an abstract number (in this case inches) representing the longest dimension of an object (i.e. not really volume). It is used to determine whether an object can fit into the mouth of a container. Thus a container's volume determines what size objects may be placed inside. A container has its own intrinsic empty weight and also has a maximum weight capacity which determines how many objects may be contained within it before it is full. All equipment objects and treasures have a weight including coinage. Of course magically enspelled equipment might have significantly altered weights and volumes.

There are 112 theoretical wear positions. There are actually 28 wear positions in 4 layers.

The 28 wear positions are:
head, face, l. ear, r. ear, l. eye, r. eye, nose, neck, l. shoulder, r. shoulder, back, chest, l. arm, r. arm, l. wrist, r. wrist, l. hand, r.hand, l. finger, r. finger, l. waist, r. waist, l. thigh, r. thigh, l. shin, r. shin, l. foot and r. foot.

The 4 layers consist of:
Layer 0 - A layer where an unlimited number of objects can be placed. These objects are not equipment objects nor directly accessed by the player.
Layer 1 - The clothing/jewelry layer.
Layer 2 - The armor layer.
Layer 3 - The accessory layer.

Why only 28? I could think of several more and perhaps some amusing ones. Well I made some compromises as to implementation and realism. I left out the obvious extra fingers for some game balance and playability concerns as opposed to reality. And it fits in 32-bits.

Technically this works as follows. There is some extra thought and effort required from the designers of objects. A prototype of an object contains 6 32-bit masking flags. These contain the possible wear locations of an object. Why 6? Completely arbitrary. The flags are checked
in order (1-6) and flag 1 being the preferred location. Many objects such as clothing and armor when worn cover multiple locations. An actual object in play contains a single flag, which is its current location. A null mask would indicate the object is currently not worn. A character or NPC has 3 wear masks which correspond to layers 1-3. The wear command checks the object-prototype masks in preferred order and attempts to find the appropriate open wear positions. Currently objects are automatically replaced at the same level but wearing is blocked by objects worn at a higher level. The command 'wear shirt' for instance will automatically remove all objects occupying the matching layer 1 positions and display what was removed to the player in order to wear the shirt. However it would be blocked if the player was wearing arm greaves at layer 2 along with the message you must remove your greaves first. Lower level layers are hidden from view, this allows some measure
of equipment hiding but is also useful for some RP aspects. Gloves would cover rings and will not be visible, for instance. If an object is successfully worn, the mask is applied to the appropriate character layer and the real objects mask is replaced. Enough technical details, suffice it to say all this is extremely efficient (bit operations) and the number of lines coded for wear/remove is quite small.

Some object examples:

A chain mail shirt -
Flag 1 - chest, back, right arm, left arm and layer 2 bits.
Flag 2 - left hand, right hand and layer 3 bits.
Flags 3 - 6 are null
A longbow -
Flag 1 - l. shoulder and layer 3
Flag 2 - r. shoulder and layer 3
Flag 3 - back and layer 3
Flag 4 - l. hand and layer 3
Flag 5 - R. hand and layer 3


The player interface is not much more complicated than current ones. A player's "inventory" consists of the items worn and occupying carried containers. There is no virtual inventory. I'm thinking of adding a command to allow players to set their own search preferences regarding which containers are searched. I implement a 'wear all' command which wears objects at lower level layers before those of a higher layer. I also implement 'wear object location' where location can be specified any number of ways. Prefixing with left|right or post fixing with inside|outside for those objects that can be worn at different layers. Some jewelry for instance. In addition one should allow many alternative synonyms for locations (inner|inside or side|waist|abdomen).

There should be some situational limits on the wear command during normal combat. No more disrobing in front of your opponent. Weight and container limits should prevent stuffing 3 halberds in a backpack or other unrealistic combinations.

In most cases the wear object command will place the object in its correct location without any player override. Also much of the layer 1 equipment is considered clothing and generally isn't removed. Well I have heard of this occurring during some very private mud activities. The only possible problems I see are from player irritation at having to remove certain objects in order to wear lower layered ones. As far as combat useful items, this should be minimal.

The level zero layer contains objects such as wounds, tattoos, old scars, facial expressions, disguise applications and some other stuff which I haven't thought of yet. The character object does contain a level 0 mask which I call a wounds mask. Any location severely wounded enough to not allow wearing of an object is marked here. A combat system implementing an enhanced critical hit system which implements hit location and wound severity would use this layer. These are implemented in the form of virtual objects which are indirectly accessed through the healing system. A wound object has a timer and may disappear normally. A lost limb wound object would of course not have a timer and would cause equipment wearing problems. When a wound object is removed there is a chance that a scar object might take its place.

Depending on the initial wounds severity this scar object may be timed to disappear or be permanent. Tattoos, body piercings and other such niceties can purchased and applied to this layer. A player has the option of choosing hair color, eye color when creating their character. These are all implemented as layer 0 objects.

Expressions are an enhancement to socials/emotes. These are applied to the face location and consist of things like smiling, scowling, pouting, angry, etc. Disguise applications are most useful for those of the thief/assassin bent, though not wholly their province. I know many mudders who would like to enhance their character's appearance through the use of hair dyes, well-placed moles, the latest in mud hair-styles. All of which can be readily purchased at an appropriate shop. Some of this cool stuff is essential fluff for fans of Cyberpunk, Vampyre and similar RPing games. For those of you with a decidedly hack-n-slash bent, a well-placed scar with a story behind it might lend some credence to your boasting, although you might want to keep the one fido gave you as a newbie covered up.

The power of this layering comes into play in character descriptions. Player descriptions are given from the top layer down hiding all items underneath. Player names are only displayed if the character is recognizable as such. Brief descriptions could range from "a cowled and cloaked figure is here" to "a scowling faced male elf is here". Look/examine descriptions are much richer and detailed of course. This is something still in progress and I won't be happy with until the textual flow feels right. Disguise and other appearance changing objects are placed and removed at layer 0. Thus a character with a good disguise skill might be perceived as they intend while a player with no talent for disguise may appear as they are ("You see Bob wearing make-up, a wig and dress"). Characters can become quite unique and memorable.

I believe this might be useful and fun for role-playing and social environments and/or more detailed combat effects.

Article at WearLocations
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Scandum



Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 28
Location: I'm in the TV

PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2005 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It might be easier to add prototypes instead. This means less work for builders, as well as allowing to use those 6 integers for other meta data. Prototypes also allow for adding much more information, your design could include material type, damage, if your underwear needs to be washed, etc.

Custom prototypes can be created to deal with unique equipment, such as a chainmail shirt with a ripped off sleeve, this would however require you to use pointers instead of an index number.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Kithrater



Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A similar system (from a glance, was different with no '0' layer) was implemented on a failed MUD project from a trio of Brisbane-based MUDers. As a builder there, I found one of the more difficult aspects in using it was selecting the appropriate layer flags for each piece of equipment; a clear policy on what a tunic will cover as opposed to what a shirt will cover as opposed to what a hauberk cover is needed so you a) are approaching things in a somewhat uniform manner and b) can do a copy/paste job into the client when producing new shirts/tunics/hauberks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
KaVir



Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 565
Location: Munich

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've done something similar, although the design has become a bit ragged around the edges as it's changed from the original plan (which was to have a very simple equipment system with each character using just a few items).

I started out by giving each object a "wear location" (head, body, finger, etc) and each body-shape a list of available locations along with how many things it can wear at each of them - for example a human has a left ring-finger and a right ring-finger, each of which can store one "finger" wear-location item, as well as a single strapped-to-waist location which can store four objects. Thus a humanoid can wear one ring on each hand and four weapons strapped to their belt.

However I later added "protect locations" and layers. Each piece of equipment can have any number of "protect locations". For example a vest protects your body and back, while a shirt also protects your neck and arms. It's the combination of "protect locations" and layers which determine if you can wear something - for example if you wear a shift (protecting body, back and groin) you can't also wear a loincloth (protecting groin), even though both are technically worn on different locations, because you've already got something covering your groin at that layer.

As a result I seriously considered removing the (now mostly redundant) wear locations, but realised they were still needed for certain things - for example a ring is too small to cover any "protect locations", so it still has to rely on the wear location.

As far as layers are concerned, I ended up with six - and each represents a separate bit so that they can be combined (which isn't something I've ended up using, but the idea was that you might have an item thick enough to cover more than one layer, such as a padded helmet which didn't leave enough space for a chainmail coif underneath).

One drawback I've found is that some items should theoretically be wearable on different layers - for example a mithril vest should be wearable under your shirt or over it. I guess that could be fixed, but then it would lead on to other potential problems such as a player wearing one mithril vest under his shirt and another mithril vest over the top.

There's also the issue of items which could be worn on multiple locations (eg tying a scarf around your waist). I ended up ignoring this concept, with the sole exception of sheathable weapons (you can choose to place them in a non-standard location if they're small enough - so you could strap your scimitars across your back instead of to your belt if you wished).

I also ran into some issues with shields - for example a target shield protects your arms, hands and body while it is strapped to your arm, but protects your back when slung over your shoulder. These cases are fairly rare though, so I just added them as special cases.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Lindahl



Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2005 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I guess that could be fixed, but then it would lead on to other potential problems such as a player wearing one mithril vest under his shirt and another mithril vest over the top.


That isn't necessarily a problem with the implementation, but rather a problem with the mechanics, no? I don't see why anyone wouldn't be able to wear two mithril vests (assuming they're lightweight).

Quote:
I also ran into some issues with shields - for example a target shield protects your arms, hands and body while it is strapped to your arm, but protects your back when slung over your shoulder. These cases are fairly rare though, so I just added them as special cases.


Make the protection mask AND'd with the worn location to give you the real protection mask. Then let the protection level be based on the material (and style, for example, chain armor doesn't really protect blunt attacks).

I've extended some of these ideas further with a 'visibility' mask. For example, chain armor has some visibility, allowing one, if close enough, to see the color of an underneath shirt and perhaps even its material.

Also, its important to make a worn location dynamic. For instance, opening and closing a cloak can reveal or hide neck, chest and abdomen layers.

Another extension that would be nice to have is for permenant damage on items reflect the wear location. For example, if you find some chain armor in the battlefield, it might have been last worn by someone who had their chest slashed open - as such, it won't take up the chest slot, and will be useless for protecting the chest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
kelson76



Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:42 am    Post subject: Balance.... Reply with quote

The most important thing a MUD can feature is "Balance".

Period, plain and simple.

You need to ensure that a player that has the absolute best possible equipment for every location, in conjunction with their skills is not Godlike.

This is especially true in MUDs that allow PK.

The more EQ locations you provide, the more difficult it is to balance the MUD. Also, the less impact you can allow for each piece of EQ, because the additive effect can end up being ridiculous.

I've looked at running an increased number of EQ locations, but every time I look at it, the defaults from a Smaug type code base seem sufficient.

Instead of focusing on the # of locations, look at the potential for impact for each piece of EQ. Make each location really count. This means that specific EQ has more value, and work to make that extra valuable EQ hard to obtain.

I remember from playing Realms of Despair from the old days, (10 yrs ago), that getting specific pieces of clan EQ was very important, because of the IMPACT.

Just a thought....

- Kelson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Author Message
KaVir



Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 565
Location: Munich

PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The most important thing a MUD can feature is "Balance".

Period, plain and simple.


More important than "fun"?

Quote:
You need to ensure that a player that has the absolute best possible equipment for every location, in conjunction with their skills is not Godlike.


IMO you should ensure that there is no "absolute best possible equipment". If there's a "best" helmet and a "best weapon", then everyone will use them (unless they're prevented somehow, such as having a limited number of them in the game - at which point the system becomes unbalanced).

Quote:
The more EQ locations you provide, the more difficult it is to balance the MUD.


Not really - if I add a 'feet' wear location, then I only have to ensure that boots, shoes and sandals are balanced against each other. If it's a location I think should be optional (such as weapons), then I also have to ensure that it's balanced against no item at all.

Quote:
Also, the less impact you can allow for each piece of EQ, because the additive effect can end up being ridiculous.


It depends how it's done, but item bonuses don't need to be cumulative; I could wear gauntlets to protect my hands, boots to protect my feet and a helmet to protect my head, but the bonuses themselves aren't going to stack. And even if they do stack, that doesn't mean it's going to be worth doing for everyone - for example my system allows players to wear a breastplate over a chainmail shirt over a cotton shirt over a vest, but most people prefer to wear less than that to avoid too many encumbrance penalties.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Huri



Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Instead of layers, you could use a non-linear encumbrance factor on each wear-slot. For example:

Trousers: +1 encumbrance, total 0+ 1*(1+1/3) = 1.3 encumbrance
Plate greaves: +4 encumbrance, total (1 + 4)*(1+2/3) = 8.3
Another pair of trousers: +1 encumbrance, total (1 + 4 + 1)*(1+3/3) = 12
Another pair of plate greaves: +4 encumbrance, total (1 + 4 + 1 + 4)*(1+4/3) = 23.3

That would allow people to wear items however they want to, while making some combinations better than others. Obviously the formula needs tweaking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
kelson76



Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KaVir wrote:


More important than "fun"?



Point taken. Smile A more correctly phrased way of saying it, is that I think lack of balance is the enemy of "fun" in the long term. At first, it can be fun, but once the novelty wears off, it gets boring fast.


KaVir wrote:
IMO you should ensure that there is no "absolute best possible equipment". If there's a "best" helmet and a "best weapon", then everyone will use them (unless they're prevented somehow, such as having a limited number of them in the game - at which point the system becomes unbalanced).


I think it is fine to have particular EQ that is the "best" for a specific location for a specific focus. This means that a "warrior" may have a "best" helmet for doing damage, while a "mage" may have a different "best" hat for some magic focused attribute.

I like having a strong focus on EQ and questing to gain that EQ. I also like it staged where players need to group to complete the quest, forcing the grouping through the needs for assorted talents.

Even having a limited number of these items allows for balance. Balance doesn't mean every character is equal, it means that there is a level of parity between each class.

I think we are coming at this from a different perspective on the value of EQ. If I am remembering correctly, you do not place much emphasis on EQ attributes. This is based on my GW experience back before the source was stolen, then subsequently released.

Kelson76 wrote:
The more EQ locations you provide, the more difficult it is to balance the MUD.


KaVir wrote:

Not really - if I add a 'feet' wear location, then I only have to ensure that boots, shoes and sandals are balanced against each other. If it's a location I think should be optional (such as weapons), then I also have to ensure that it's balanced against no item at all.


If you fully balance items across a location, this results in less differentiation between pieces of EQ. However, if you balance across the race/class boundaries, by allowing specific EQ to only be worn, or the special modifiers to only be active when a specific race/class is using the item, this changes the method for balancing. The balance is achieved across the entire spectrum, instead of on a location by location basis.

Kelson76 wrote:
Also, the less impact you can allow for each piece of EQ, because the additive effect can end up being ridiculous.


KaVir wrote:
It depends how it's done, but item bonuses don't need to be cumulative; I could wear gauntlets to protect my hands, boots to protect my feet and a helmet to protect my head, but the bonuses themselves aren't going to stack. And even if they do stack, that doesn't mean it's going to be worth doing for everyone - for example my system allows players to wear a breastplate over a chainmail shirt over a cotton shirt over a vest, but most people prefer to wear less than that to avoid too many encumbrance penalties.


Now that depends on if you are doing a location based damage system, where you have specific defensive levels for each location, or if you are working off the more common single damage location style system.

My understanding is that you have a very strong focus on detailed combat, specifically aimed at PvP. I'm coming at this from more of a questing PvNPC style focus, with PvP being secondary, so less focus on bending the entire system toward supporting PvP.

I can certainly see how adding the encumberance penalty can create reason to not load up every layer to maxmize modifiers in a stacking system. But, only if the encum penalty provides a significant effect that is visable during gameplay.

- Kelson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Author Message
Tyche



Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 176
Location: Ohio, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Balance.... Reply with quote

kelson76 wrote:

Instead of focusing on the # of locations, look at the potential for impact for each piece of EQ. Make each location really count. This means that specific EQ has more value, and work to make that extra valuable EQ hard to obtain.


Though I realize the original idea was for a Merc/ROM type mud, I think it has a much wider general application. My focus was not really on equipment as a game element, but on its use in the description of the character, role-playing/social elements, and a very different combat system based on critical hits-wounds. I understand that in most Dikus equipment is additive and sometimes multiplicative for attributes and stats that have nothing to do with the equipment itself. Meaning most equipment in such games is inherently "magical". One of the changes I assumed one would have to make was to make armor class and combat hit location specific. The ROT implementation that I was made aware of limited layer 1 items to those marked clothing which apparently did not include any "magical" properties.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
KaVir



Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 565
Location: Munich

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I think it is fine to have particular EQ that is the "best" for a specific location for a specific focus. This means that a "warrior" may have a "best" helmet for doing damage, while a "mage" may have a different "best" hat for some magic focused attribute.


Quote:
I like having a strong focus on EQ and questing to gain that EQ.


The former ('best' eq) tends to undermine the latter (questing for eq), as once people have got the best stuff they no longer need to keep looking. If collecting eq is a strong focus of the game, then perhaps randomly generated items would be something to consider?

Quote:
I think we are coming at this from a different perspective on the value of EQ. If I am remembering correctly, you do not place much emphasis on EQ attributes.


I do - very much so - but with a focus on making each piece of equipment different, yet of equal overall value. My eq design is based on the idea that there is no 'good' or 'bad' equipment, but rather that every weapon has its use, every piece of armour has its place, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Kjartan



Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 110

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KaVir wrote:
The former ('best' eq) tends to undermine the latter (questing for eq), as once people have got the best stuff they no longer need to keep looking.

This appears not to be the case. In my mud people spend a good chunk of their time looking for equipment (which is not randomly generated, it just comes from a list of fixed items, standard-diku-style), but even people who have played for thousands of hours haven't "got the best stuff".

I think this is aided by encouraging sets of equipment for different stuff. (That has been pooh-poohed elsewhere in these forums as it tends to require people to carry around an unrealistic number of things, but we just live with that - most high-level players have fairly superhuman strength and we don't bother with encumbrance or delay times for finding things in a sack with a hundred little gizmos in it.)

For example, we have a 'raise dead' spell for use on PCs. If it fails (or if nobody casts it within 5 minutes of the PC getting killed), the PC "finishes dying" and risks losing a level. Its success chance can be improved by a certain type of magical equipment bonus. So, high-level clerics tend to accumulate a "raising set" of equipment, which they put on before attempting a raise. The clerics with the best raising equipment are more popular raisers. There are probably dozens of items that are considered "raising equipment". We have similar "sets" for other stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Author Message
Molly O'Hara



Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 99
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kjartan wrote:
KaVir wrote:
The former ('best' eq) tends to undermine the latter (questing for eq), as once people have got the best stuff they no longer need to keep looking.

This appears not to be the case. In my mud people spend a good chunk of their time looking for equipment (which is not randomly generated, it just comes from a list of fixed items, standard-diku-style), but even people who have played for thousands of hours haven't "got the best stuff"..


What we do in our mud is to make different eqipment good for different classes. (We have eight classes, but the player can multiclass by selecting a new class when they remort and also reach 'Grand Mastery' in all classes). The Mud is also very equipment-oriented, built on exploring and questing, and the players spend a lot of effort searching for the best combinations of equipment for their current class.

So heavy platemail with good AC and twohanded longswords would be the best choice for the fighter classes, while the rogue classes would prefer lightweight clothes that improve speed, stealth and dexterity, and the spellcasting classes don't use weapons at all, they have to look for staffs or orbs. All in all a player would need at least 3 different sets of equip to always be on top in their current class. (Most of the top players have houses to store the items in, while the rest use crashproof lockers).

This works rather well as it is, but I am foreseeing some balance problems when we implement the craftskills we are working on. Among the skills would be the ability to forge your own weapons and make your own clothes and armour. The problem is how good we should make the crafted items compared to the top quest items of the same kind. If the crafted items get too good, people might stop exploring and just sit and make swords all day long. If they are not good enough, nobody will ever bother with crafting... I think we may have to work some random element into the crafts, so that a crafted item potentially could be better than any item found in the game, but normally be a bit less good. The hope of crafting the perfect item would hopefully keep them trying, even if the percentage is just 1:10000.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Author Message
shasarak



Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 134
Location: Emily's Shop

PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This works rather well as it is, but I am foreseeing some balance problems when we implement the craftskills we are working on. Among the skills would be the ability to forge your own weapons and make your own clothes and armour. The problem is how good we should make the crafted items compared to the top quest items of the same kind. If the crafted items get too good, people might stop exploring and just sit and make swords all day long. If they are not good enough, nobody will ever bother with crafting... I think we may have to work some random element into the crafts, so that a crafted item potentially could be better than any item found in the game, but normally be a bit less good. The hope of crafting the perfect item would hopefully keep them trying, even if the percentage is just 1:10000.


It stands to reason that not just anyone can make a magical sword, because if any sword-maker could, they'd be commonplace. So you need to ask yourself: what was it about the person who is supposed to have originally forged the magical swords that are quest objects which made his weapons so superior?

Was he a master of a branch of weapon-related spell-casting?

Was the sword made from a particularly rare type of metal (e.g. meteorite iron, which has a high nickel content)?

Or is some exotic, magical, or semi-magical ingredient central to the process that is hard to locate (e.g. demon ichor)?

Or was the maker privy to some ancient sword-making technieque now known only to one or two master smiths whose dwelling places can only be reached after many days' journey?

Or perhaps the weapons aren't even metal at all - in the distant past one mud character of mine wielded a sword with a curved, milk-white blade that was supposed to have been carved from the tusk of a slain dragon. I also once had the idea for a sword made via nanotechnology - the whole blade was a single, perfect diamond crystal, covered with a 1-atom-thick layer of fluorine, thus combining the bulk properties of diamond with the surface properties of teflon.

Once you've figured out all these possibilities you could then turn the crafting of a powerful weapon into a highly complex quest in its own right - collecting magical ingredients, tracking down the ancient swordmaster who can tell you the secret, finding the right sort of clay to encase the blade in as it cools, etc. etc.

The quality of a crafted sword would then depend not merely on the level of crafting skill, but on how much time and effort the crafter was prepared to spend gathering ingredients.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
kelson76



Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:29 pm    Post subject: Combine the crafting and questing Reply with quote

Molly O'Hara wrote:

This works rather well as it is, but I am foreseeing some balance problems when we implement the craftskills we are working on. Among the skills would be the ability to forge your own weapons and make your own clothes and armour. The problem is how good we should make the crafted items compared to the top quest items of the same kind. If the crafted items get too good, people might stop exploring and just sit and make swords all day long. If they are not good enough, nobody will ever bother with crafting... I think we may have to work some random element into the crafts, so that a crafted item potentially could be better than any item found in the game, but normally be a bit less good. The hope of crafting the perfect item would hopefully keep them trying, even if the percentage is just 1:10000.


An option here is that you can obtain runes which can only be applied by a master craftsman. These runes are obtained via the questing aspect. In fact, you can take the most powerful, and have them only be able to be applied to a crafted EQ. In addition to this, you bring in a quality factor for the EQ, which means that during the process of applying the rune, the EQ could self destruct.

A perfectly crafted piece of EQ, with a "Grand Master" craftsman, would reduce that chance to "0". However, even a "Grand Master" Swordmaker would average 95% quality, with only 1% of all EQ crafted being 100% quality.

The more powerful the rune being applied, the more 'unstable' it is, and more likely to destroy the EQ, with shoddy EQ being much more likely to be destroyed.

It allows you to balance the crafting against the questing. Also provides a real reason to gain a 'grand master' level in crafting, and can provide limitation to the proliferation of EQ w/ the best runes. They are difficult to obtain, and even if obtained can be lost in the application of them.

- Kelson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    mudlab.org Forum Index -> Design All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
BBTech Template by © 2003-04 MDesign