CurvedSpace Forums: Concerns Regarding GM-Made Equipment - CurvedSpace Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • {lang:pm_locked} This topic is locked

Concerns Regarding GM-Made Equipment

#1 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Cspace {lang:icon}

  • Previously Cspace
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • {lang:view_gallery}
  • Group: Administrator
  • Posts: 9,756
  • Joined: 03-August 02

Posted 10 September 2006 - 04:08 AM

Here's a little guide for GMs when it comes to implementing equipment... I know that there has been some confusion lately with it.


Understanding Damage:

- Melee weapons generally have "DP +" something. Strength affects them. Ranged weapons generally have a flat DP stat. Strength doesn't affect them. If some weapon is rather unusual, feel free to deviate from this, but realize that ranged weapons should not usually out-damage melee weapons when intended for the same level of character.

- GMs shouldn't try to out-do others' quest rewards. Those who are new to being a GM often feel that the rewards define a quest, and in turn will try to give some form of equipment that would benefit everyone. Then the next has to be better, and it goes on. This disrupts the balance and scale of things, and can sometimes get other GMs ticked off because players end up with a huge variance in power. It could also spark fairness issues when certain people get "alpha" equipment.

- Another note about scale... Please keep in mind that weapons' damage shouldn't be enough to make a spellcaster into a warrior with spells. Wait until the class update for people to be running around as fighting mages. bluetongue.gif


Understanding Effects:

- Equipment should very rarely implement class' signature abilities. These are abilities like dual wield and invisibility which are intended to help balance certain classes. When a piece of equipment allows for anyone to dual wield, for example, there goes a big strength of warriors. If a certain type of effect is only implemented in one or a couple classes, chances are that it shouldn't be used in a piece of equipment. Keep in mind that this will be relaxed a little when the class trees go up.

- Weapons should usually have the most potent effects of equipment. This is because there are fewer (often only one) slots for them. Next would be the jewelry slots. If you implement effects in some other type of equipment, please be sure that it is really worth it. By all means you can do it, but just think about it a little bit.

- Please don't neglect placing some sort of limitation or energy cost on an effect that needs one. This includes equipment that can do damage other than through standard attacks. You don't want to make wizards obsolete, for example, by providing nukes on equipment that require no energy.

- Just remember that even simple effects on equipment can very easily provide balance problems. When I get a preview ready for the new classes, there will be some ideas for safe effects that can be implemented. Until then, however, please take great care with effects.


*************************************************

I know that there have been at least a couple issues with this during the past week, but I'm not too worried. There are some new GMs that are still getting accustomed to this, and I just need to make aspects like this clear so things are going smoothly by the time the class update comes along. When that happens, all of ya'll will be in uncharted territory, so we need to at least get through this step so we're ready. bluetongue.gif
Posted Image
0

#2 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Neraphym {lang:icon}

  • Do not want!
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • Group: Super Moderator
  • Posts: 10,332
  • Joined: 29-October 03
  • Location:Eorthe

Posted 19 May 2007 - 12:50 AM

QUOTE
- GMs shouldn't try to out-do others' quest rewards. Those who are new to being a GM often feel that the rewards define a quest, and in turn will try to give some form of equipment that would benefit everyone. Then the next has to be better, and it goes on. This disrupts the balance and scale of things, and can sometimes get other GMs ticked off because players end up with a huge variance in power. It could also spark fairness issues when certain people get "alpha" equipment.


While I agree that we shouldn't make weapons 'broken,' I feel that we can push the limits to a certain extent if we provide a way to level the playing field. I propose a new rule that whenever a GM makes a unique item for a single player, he or she should also make another with the same stats available in a shop somewhere (doesn't have to be the same item, just keep the same stats). This would balance thing out, so that even if someone does get a strong weapon, another player can get it, too. What does everyone think about this?
Neraphym Archaeon
Posted Image
GWAMM
0

#3 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Cspace {lang:icon}

  • Previously Cspace
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • {lang:view_gallery}
  • Group: Administrator
  • Posts: 9,756
  • Joined: 03-August 02

Posted 19 May 2007 - 02:32 AM

That's a good idea to maybe keep things somewhat balanced. While I'm not sure that equipment with the exact same stats should be placed in the shop, one could make equipment available that is somewhat close in power. There needs to be some variation, but hopefully with the new system, that will come in the way of tactics instead of "my sword has more DP than yours". bluetongue.gif
Posted Image
0

#4 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Darkness {lang:icon}

  • CHILDREN!
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • Group: Super Moderator
  • Posts: 11,225
  • Joined: 12-April 03
  • Location:Eorthe

Posted 19 May 2007 - 04:10 PM

QUOTE(Cspace @ Sep 9 2006, 09:08 PM) {lang:macro__view_post}
- GMs shouldn't try to out-do others' quest rewards. Those who are new to being a GM often feel that the rewards define a quest, and in turn will try to give some form of equipment that would benefit everyone.


*cough*Snowy!*cough*

QUOTE(Neraphym @ May 18 2007, 05:50 PM) {lang:macro__view_post}
QUOTE
- GMs shouldn't try to out-do others' quest rewards. Those who are new to being a GM often feel that the rewards define a quest, and in turn will try to give some form of equipment that would benefit everyone. Then the next has to be better, and it goes on. This disrupts the balance and scale of things, and can sometimes get other GMs ticked off because players end up with a huge variance in power. It could also spark fairness issues when certain people get "alpha" equipment.


While I agree that we shouldn't make weapons 'broken,' I feel that we can push the limits to a certain extent if we provide a way to level the playing field. I propose a new rule that whenever a GM makes a unique item for a single player, he or she should also make another with the same stats available in a shop somewhere (doesn't have to be the same item, just keep the same stats). This would balance thing out, so that even if someone does get a strong weapon, another player can get it, too. What does everyone think about this?


I think that making it so that, with some quests, making it so multiple rewards can be gained (but not by the same person) is better than that. The rewards would be similar in value (though not necessarily power, since value can be determined by quite a number of factors, especially between classes), so it would be sorta like you're buying it or whatever, but it's not like someone went through a ton of work to get this item by doing a huge quest... and then someone else just goes and buys it. Alternatively, you could just be consistent in your quests with the value of your rewards bluetongue.gif







“In the valley of hope, there is no winter.”

0

#5 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Neraphym {lang:icon}

  • Do not want!
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • Group: Super Moderator
  • Posts: 10,332
  • Joined: 29-October 03
  • Location:Eorthe

Posted 19 May 2007 - 05:00 PM

Well, we could just inflate the prices really high so anyoen wanting to buy it would have to go on a ton of quests to afford it. bluetongue.gif
Neraphym Archaeon
Posted Image
GWAMM
0

#6 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Darkness {lang:icon}

  • CHILDREN!
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • Group: Super Moderator
  • Posts: 11,225
  • Joined: 12-April 03
  • Location:Eorthe

Posted 19 May 2007 - 07:00 PM

Nah, my ideas just pwn yours bluetongue.gif







“In the valley of hope, there is no winter.”

0

#7 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Neraphym {lang:icon}

  • Do not want!
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • Group: Super Moderator
  • Posts: 10,332
  • Joined: 29-October 03
  • Location:Eorthe

Posted 21 May 2007 - 06:05 AM

QUOTE
- Equipment should very rarely implement class' signature abilities. These are abilities like dual wield and invisibility which are intended to help balance certain classes. When a piece of equipment allows for anyone to dual wield, for example, there goes a big strength of warriors. If a certain type of effect is only implemented in one or a couple classes, chances are that it shouldn't be used in a piece of equipment. Keep in mind that this will be relaxed a little when the class trees go up.


Perhaps another rule of thumb to be made:

No equipment can have any skills copying or similar to the master skills of any class's concentration (or the mastery of the class itself).
Neraphym Archaeon
Posted Image
GWAMM
0

#8 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Cspace {lang:icon}

  • Previously Cspace
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • {lang:view_gallery}
  • Group: Administrator
  • Posts: 9,756
  • Joined: 03-August 02

Posted 21 May 2007 - 06:08 AM

QUOTE(Neraphym @ May 21 2007, 02:05 AM) {lang:macro__view_post}
QUOTE
- Equipment should very rarely implement class' signature abilities. These are abilities like dual wield and invisibility which are intended to help balance certain classes. When a piece of equipment allows for anyone to dual wield, for example, there goes a big strength of warriors. If a certain type of effect is only implemented in one or a couple classes, chances are that it shouldn't be used in a piece of equipment. Keep in mind that this will be relaxed a little when the class trees go up.


Perhaps another rule of thumb to be made:

No equipment can have any skills copying or similar to the master skills of any class's concentration (or the mastery of the class itself).

That's a good idea, although I think it should be expanded so that no class' signature abilities are copied either (such as being able to dual wield, being able to end a curse, increasing the limit on minions, altering the timeline of a battle, etc.).
Posted Image
0

#9 {lang:macro__useroffline}   Neraphym {lang:icon}

  • Do not want!
  • Icon
  • {lang:view_blog}
  • Group: Super Moderator
  • Posts: 10,332
  • Joined: 29-October 03
  • Location:Eorthe

Posted 21 May 2007 - 06:12 AM

QUOTE(Darkness™ @ May 19 2007, 03:00 PM) {lang:macro__view_post}
Nah, my ideas just pwn yours bluetongue.gif



QUOTE(Cspace @ May 18 2007, 10:32 PM) {lang:macro__view_post}
That's a good idea to maybe keep things somewhat balanced. While I'm not sure that equipment with the exact same stats should be placed in the shop, one could make equipment available that is somewhat close in power. There needs to be some variation, but hopefully with the new system, that will come in the way of tactics instead of "my sword has more DP than yours". bluetongue.gif


QUOTE(Cspace @ May 21 2007, 02:08 AM) {lang:macro__view_post}
That's a good idea, although I think it should be expanded so that no class' signature abilities are copied either (such as being able to dual wield, being able to end a curse, increasing the limit on minions, altering the timeline of a battle, etc.).



Put your cinii where your mouth is! :$ bluetongue.gif
Neraphym Archaeon
Posted Image
GWAMM
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • {lang:pm_locked} This topic is locked

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users