Why do we always reply to Jeremy at two addresses...? On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Rasmus Rxnlev wrote: > On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Jeremy Elson wrote: > > > If you want to remove that, make sure the mob's class is some sane value, > > otherwise the MUD will crash when it tries to access that titles[] array. > > Although, this will not be a problem any more in patchlevel 12, because > > I'm planning on changing the titles[] array to a function call (making > > exp formula-based rather than table-based.) I'm doing this because people > > seem to always forget to extend that array when adding new levels to the > > MUD. (Note, after I make that change, the *only* thing you'll have to do > > to give your MUD more levels is change the LVL_xxx constants in structs.h! > > Cool, eh?) > > Well, I just wanted to make a note/recommendation... Make a formula for > EVERY class, so different classes can be set up to require different > ammounts of XP for the levels... I think the current XP tables reflect > this.. and if they don't they should *grin* You can get around it by using a formula like this: x = cl^2 + lb Where c is the class coefficient, l is the current level, and b is the base experience (usually fairly small). I don't know what use this particular formula may or may not be, but it demonstrates how you don't need to make the formula different. As a possible alternative, you can try the Ultima VI "standard:" x = c2^l But you're right about the experience changing from class to class (or rather, how it should). I'd think that you should make life easier for a mage, even though everyone else thinks the opposite. Well, you're all wrong, damn it. > I've at least found it very usefull with the current X tables, that the > amount of XP is flexible over levels and classes... In general a formula > will ruin it a little.. but it's ofcourse easier in terms of changabillity. You're right, it will. The best way to do it is to have massive numbers, or let the levels run up to 500 reasonably. This way, you can almost eliminate the formulas entirely by offering specific experience for the completion of a quest and so on. Actually, this goes with the level-less design. Each quest gives a player a certain skill or something, and thus levels are no longer necessary. Or so. > > BTW, in case anyone is wondering, it's this kind of thing that I want to > > get done before the production release of 3.0: really polish things so that > > things are easy to change in the future, complete the documentation, etc. > > Well, risking getting flamed I only have this comment: > > Making things easier, doesnt guarantee they become better ... That's true. However, making something complex usually means it gets worse. Simplify, simplify. The easier you make something, the less versatile and ultimately useful it will be. You have to try to make it as easy as you can while still keeping all of its functionality. This is usually a personal decision. Do you think it's worth sacrificing some control over user's levels for making it hundreds of times easier to add new levels, change ease-of-level-transition, and so on. I happen to think it's worth it. Also makes it a little easier on the users. > Regards, > Con. > > d. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Barid Bel Medar icarus@berkshire.net Knights of the Cosmos Shayol Ghul Resort and Health Spa ------------------------------------------------------------------ "I am returning this otherwise good typing paper to you because someone has printed gibberish all over it and put your name at the top." - English Professor, Ohio University ------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST