INFO Latest Update News

[villager]

I think the idea is fine, but it takes forever to kill an "Orc guard" with me plus 4 other level 30's :S

Maybe change the hp to +10%/player, damage the same, and xp could be +5%/player? I don't want to spend 5 minutes on one foe that isn't a boss/mini boss :|

Being a higher level isn't completely pointless, we're just at a point where there's no "rewarding" items/xp. I really don't think we need 40+ level items and xp giving monsters (Without a proper level cap) if we're already having trouble with level 5's leveling to 25 insanely fast *Cough* Orc_arena *Cough*.

Instead of level caps that make weapons non-usable, is it possible to make items non-pickupable? Might make being a higher level more rewarding: A level 20 says- "I can't wait for someone to help me get a Nova blade!" versus A level 20 saying- "I can't wait to be a level 30 so I can do (A level 30+ map) so I can earn (A level 30+ weapon/armor)!"

 

[FER]

A Spitting cave spider gives 70XP (almost same as blackhand warrior)

 

[J-M v2.5.5]

I can add something to allow you to toggle the feature off on specific maps (although I've no idea why you'd want to, as yer just robbing people of XP), but I've got more people for this than against it (it wasn't my idea), and I've my doubts that you have any intention of working on those maps in anycase.

1) The extra amount of XP you get is insanely low compared to the extra amount of time it takes to kill X monster.
2) I don't give a crap if "more people are for this than against it" because democracy didn't prevail either after the poll I created about the new reward system. But hey, here's me betting on the "silent majority" who totally hate this new idea.
3) I've already started working on both maps and this more-players-more-etc. idea would totally destroy their fun and playability.

 

[FER]

It can be modified instead of totally removing it. MS:C is still a Beta, nothing is definitive

 

[J-M v2.5.5]

As long as this system stays the hell out of every map I'll ever release, I'm happy.

 

[Evaan]

I think the idea is fine, but it takes forever to kill an "Orc guard" with me plus 4 other level 30's :S

Maybe change the hp to +10%/player, damage the same, and xp could be +5%/player? I don't want to spend 5 minutes on one foe that isn't a boss/mini boss :|

Being a higher level isn't completely pointless, we're just at a point where there's no "rewarding" items/xp. I really don't think we need 40+ level items and xp giving monsters (Without a proper level cap) if we're already having trouble with level 5's leveling to 25 insanely fast *Cough* Orc_arena *Cough*.

Instead of level caps that make weapons non-usable, is it possible to make items non-pickupable? Might make being a higher level more rewarding: A level 20 says- "I can't wait for someone to help me get a Nova blade!" versus A level 20 saying- "I can't wait to be a level 30 so I can do (A level 30+ map) so I can earn (A level 30+ weapon/armor)!"

I like the idea of this system of more players means more difficult (tougher) monsters. I thought, and hoped, this would be possible now with the new reward system and everything.

However, if a monster is tougher to kill, naturally the XP should scale as well, but more than double, so that players are encouraged to work with teams in order to get more experience.

In Dark Age of Camelot, this has turned the other way. Previously, you would get Group Bonus on experience. Now the base experience gained is 150% (200% in some areas), while the group bonus isn't increased at all. So now you can spend several days looking for a group (also because your health naturally regenerates faster in combat compared to earlier).

More players should mean tougher monsters and better rewards.

I think the toughness should scale differently in different areas based on how many players.

2 players: 150% HP, 150% Experience
3 players: 200% HP, 250% Experience, 150% Damage
4 Players: 300% HP, 300% Experience, 150% Damage
5 Players: 300% HP, 350% Experience, 200% Damage
6 Players: 400% HP, 400% Experience, 250% Damage

I don't know. This is something that would require a lot of testing. Probably a global testing for best results.


Anyways, it saddens me that people would use maps such as Orc Arena (haven't played it myself, I assume it's a sort of gladiator arena with orcs coming out of it?) to gain levels.
If this is actually a problem and keeps people from playing the "Daragothian" maps, I say we either remove experience from orcs in Orc Arena, or lower it to such a level that it's not desireable to train and level there (in other words, still the sheer fun of slaughtering orcs).

 

[Thothie]

Again, the XP scale does not increase on the same difficulty with ANY monster.

The Ice Lord - 9000hp total, is worth 600XP. Calrian at 1500hp is worth 200XP. Do the math. No monster, not a single one, raises XP with difficulty proportionately. The ratio is generally much worse than 10:1, and gets increasingly worse as you go up the ladder.

If we make all monsters increase XP by difficulty, you'd be at level 40 in under a week.

We simply do not have a game world, nor weapon, nor monster repitoir, large enough to accommodate that rate of leveling, nor do we even have one planned to be that large.

(Mind you, to give you an idea of how insane that proposal is, assuming rats are worth 3xp, and you adjust for both HP and damage output: Calrian would have to be worth 4,500xp, and the Ice Lord 47,000xp – and that's not adding anything for special abilities, just scaled for proportional damage and hp.)

As long as this system stays the hell out of every map I'll ever release, I'm happy.

I'll setup a trigger you can spawn on your maps to turn the adjustments off, but all it'll do is make your map less appealing to multiple players as they'll know they'll be getting ripped for XP.

2 players: 150% HP, 150% Experience
3 players: 200% HP, 250% Experience, 150% Damage
4 Players: 300% HP, 300% Experience, 150% Damage
5 Players: 300% HP, 350% Experience, 200% Damage
6 Players: 400% HP, 400% Experience, 250% Damage

See above commentary, but it's also extreme in the other direction, as I suspect 400% health and 250% damage at six players would make, say for instance, Foutpost absolutely impossible with the intended number of players. Thornlands, similarly would get extremely dangerous for large groups of nubs.

Idea is not to punish people for running multiple players, but to make maps last a little longer while boosting the XP rewards proportionately on crowded servers, thus further increasing the incentive that more players = more xp more quickly. (Without making everyone level 40 in a week for playing with three players regularly)

Scale I'm looking into at the moment would be: minions: +10%xp/player, +25%hp/player, +20%dmg/player, with a max 3x multiplier for any one adjustment. Bosses: +5%xp, +10%hp, +10%dmg, +extra cash, with a maximum 2x for any one adjustment.

Which would come to:
2 +50%hp, +40%dmg, +20%xp
3 +75%hp, +60%dmg, +30%xp
4 +100%hp, +80%dmg, +40%xp
5 +125%hp, +100%dmg, +50%xp
6 +150%hp, +120%dmg, +60%xp
for minions under 1500hp and

2 +20%hp, +20%dmg, +10%xp
3 +30%hp, +30%dmg, +15%xp
4 +40%hp, +40%dmg, +20%xp
5 +50%hp, +50%dmg, +25%xp
6 +60%hp, +60%dmg, +30%xp
for bosses at or over 1500hp

The 2x and 3x caps would stop us from getting, say, 12,000hp Maldoras and such.

 

[Evaan]

Sounds more reasonable.

The reason why I suggested 200% HP was because two players of equal strength would deal somewhat equal damage, and time to kill monster would be the same as if you were a single player, but reconsidering - it really shouldn't take the same time.

Mind you, I haven't had the pleasure to play online, so my wild ideas are sadly affected by that, as I lack multiplayer experience.

 

[J-M v2.5.5]

I'll setup a trigger you can spawn on your maps to turn the adjustments off, but all it'll do is make your map less appealing to multiple players as they'll know they'll be getting ripped for XP.

Multiple players will also know that my maps won't be wasting their time. I've said this before, but I'll just say it again:

The extra amount of XP you get is insanely low compared to the extra amount of time it takes to kill X monster.

It takes way too long to get the extra amount of XP, which is, relatively speaking, way too low. That's why I dislike this system and that's why I don't want it in my maps.

 

[Evaan]

The system isn't even in place and hasn't gone through any heavy testing, and you despise it so badly already?

If I get you right, you don't like the fact that monsters have more hit points, (but provide more experience,) because they'll take longer time to kill, and thus people will get less experience over time?

With multiple players, a creature will go down faster due to the much more damage dealt to it, so it shouldn't be a problem. There aren't *more* enemies to kill, so you should be able to focus on the same target, and not spread out.

And if you do spread, I'm sure someone could act as a healer until you've leveled down the amount of targets.

You should be open for the possibilities of the system instead of being so heavily against it.

Again I can bring up the example of Dark Age of Camelot; the "Classic" zones in the game (meaning the old, ordinary land areas) provide 150% more experience than usual. The PvP areas provide 200% (because of the extra "danger" they possess).

The result of this is that the Classic areas are never visited or used for experience, unless used for traveling (which isn't done much, as you can teleport to the RvR areas from the capital city).

Huge, beautiful, vast wilderness is forgotten, because though people might still enjoy scenery and adventure, they kill things to get more experience and to raise in levels, and if they know they can get more experience by going elsewhere, they will go there.

 

[J-M v2.5.5]

You're supposed to be able to beat a map faster with more players in my opinion. This more-players-more-HP system doesn't allow that.

 

[Dark_Force9999]

Are these staff gonna ever be implemented?
Fire Staff
Flame Staff
Nova Staff
Ice Staff
Blizzard Staff
Tundra Staff
Thunder Staff
Lightning Staff
Storm Staff
Poison Staff (Weaker than Snake Staff)
Acidic Staff

 

[evilsquirrel]

someone could act as a healer.

i lol'd

 

[Evaan]

The increase Thothie suggested doesn't double their HP, unless there's four or more people.

Let's for example say that an orc has 100 hits.
If there's two players, he has 150 hits.
If each player deals 20 damage, it's going to take one player 5 hits if he was alone, 8 hits if he's with the other player, and if both hit the same target at the same time - 4 hits.

If you're having trouble killing the orc with 200HP with 4 people, you must be all hitting with torches or something.

It's not a massive increase in hit points. You have to remember that more people means more accumulated pain, and the experience gained also increases, meaning you kill faster for more experience, unless you kill your target on your own.

i lol'd

Because of..?

 

[evilsquirrel]

because...this is a debate-ish thing about people wanting more XP - and healing doesn't give people XP.

 

[Evaan]

Neither does dying.

My point wasn't that someone is a healer the entire time. I'm of course talking about hectic situations where someone needs to be the healer.

 

[villager]

You're better off fighting side-by-side with a lvl30+ then healing him/her, unless they're fighting regular old bandits and orcs with the fugly stick.

I really don't think the hp+/player should be that drastic. 50% per player? That's a bit much, unless they're mini boss-like (Ice reavers, elements, ect) where they don't come in large numbers.

Something that does 5-10 damage to me shouldn't have massive health. Increasing the damage per player more than the hp per player would be a better choice for monsters you encounter constantly. I want something challenging, not something annoying. (Ogres are challenging because they do a lot of damage, hard to hit and don't have massive amounts of health.)

I do see Thothie's view on the xp, just because it takes you twice as long to kill the usual monster, doesn't mean you should get massive f*cking xp.

 

[Sabre]

You're better off fighting side-by-side with a lvl30+ then healing him/her, unless they're fighting regular old bandits and orcs with the fugly stick.

I really don't think the hp+/player should be that drastic. 50% per player? That's a bit much, unless they're mini boss-like (Ice reavers, elements, ect) where they don't come in large numbers.

Something that does 5-10 damage to me shouldn't have massive health. Increasing the damage per player more than the hp per player would be a better choice for monsters you encounter constantly. I want something challenging, not something annoying. (Ogres are challenging because they do a lot of damage, hard to hit and don't have massive amounts of health.)

I do see Thothie's view on the xp, just because it takes you twice as long to kill the usual monster, doesn't mean you should get massive f*cking xp.

f

Valid point...More damage would be better than more HP, that would encourage people to tackle the same monster, because of a greater threat it could pose...Of course, you don't want an Orc Warrior doing Graznux damage, but an Orc Warrior doing 30 damage on a 4 person server would probably be a better choice than an Orc Warrior with an additional 200% health, or something like that.

 

[elfstone222]

Wish the engine was more stable, we could just add more monsters per player like serious sam. Of course that woulden't work for boss monsters, in which case the more hp/dmg/exp thing makes sense (if bosses gave better exp in the first place, sorry, but 200-300exp for 20-30 mins of beating isn't nearly proportional). Would be pretty awesome if we could squash the edict problem and make the mosnter spawners have different levels of multiplication. Cannon fodder monsters would be x2 for 2-4 people and x3 for 5+, Soldier rank (orc shamen, trolls, and various other nasties that aren't sub bosses) would be x1 for 1-3 and x2 for 4+, sub bosses would only be x2 for 5+ people (elementals, Kharaztorant childer, and other big nasties). Dunno if the engine could handle it though, I have lots of doubts on the idea if it were even possible. So I'd say the next best thing is 2x dmg 1.5x hp for monsters... to make it *feel* like there's more of them, without making it annoying.

 

[Thothie]

You're supposed to be able to beat a map faster with more players in my opinion. This more-players-more-HP system doesn't allow that.

I somehow suspect the general game populous would rather take the time to hit their orcs one more time, and gain an additional +60% XP for the entire map. (Thinking 6 players at around level 20) It's certainly, infinitely preferable, no questions asked, on non-gauntlet maps. Even for the gauntlet ones, I suspect most players would prefer to get more XP than to finish the map quicker.

But a major complaint has been that multiple players spoil games as they tear through maps too quickly and make the game far too easy. This doesn't resolve that, but it mitigates it slightly. Again, hoping to add some player number dependant spawners to help with that, and stick em in where I can, to make things more interesting. Where it isn't possible to add more monsters, it is usually possible to add stronger ones.

 

[elfstone222]

I'd like future maps to be harder and worth it. I really woulden't mind having an epic fight with a troll with 2k hp for 10 mins just to find another one around the corner if he dropped a good bit of gold, and got me 500-1k exp.

 

[Shurik3n]

Just out of curiosity, is there ever going to be an endgame? And are apostle weapons going to come into play someday?

 

[Thothie]

That's the idea, but it requires, at the very least, 3 level 50 concept maps to do and scripts galore. It would something I'd expect post MSC 1.1.

 

[ITS'aME'aMARIO!!!!]

*sigh* endgame... reminds me of wow, but i don't have the patience to level and none of wow's classes really appeal to me

 

[Thothie]

Dyam you rage quitting commander!