Is your role playing you? ( David Responds page 4 )

[David Bowman]

I have not yet read the responses to the initial post (I will today), but I wanted to clarify a few things.

I believe the multischooling system in Horizons has been proven to be a success.
The current content for that system (the skill progression, abilities, and masterable abilities) was not the best implementation possible, but was good. We will continue to adjust it to make it better, while trying to preserve people's investments of time in their characters.

The next world that I would build would use the multischooling system again. It would have different content, changed due to the lessons learned in Horizons. This is the basis for the report from Warcry.

The original intent of the multischooling system was to allow you to play the role that you chose from among the roles that you had earned. If your friends needed a damage dealing wonder tonight, you could fill that role because you had spent the time to master that role. But if they needed a healer to save them from their poor choices in combat, then you could fill that role as well. It was not intended that you could fill both roles simultaneously at that same power. Choices are good. Being able to retain your character's name, appearance, social connectionsand reputation is good. Being able to do everything, anything, without possibility of failure is bad.

Thank you for playing Horizons,

David

[Joaqim]

Calling Dragons, "Dinos", is a pretty pathetic attempt to draw this into a Dragon vs. Biped thread when it's plainly not, and carefully avoided so far.

Well it's just me, but my feeling was, that the thread was already going in that direction....well, at least prior Vah's posting[;)]
Btw. it's not meant in the wayyou take it, within Guild callings like Dino, Dwagons, Dorfs, Lizards, Freak (me), etc... are kinda usal, but well there everyone knows not to take it to serious[:P]

[David Bowman]

After reading through the player responses I want to add that from a Role Playing perspective, it makes sense to me that characters who continue to study and practice new skills and abilities would continue to add to their breadth and depth of skills and abilities. We put Trainers into Horizons in order to provide a context for grouping skills and abilities together, and to provide a mechanism for placing limitations on power through a means other than a finite life-span with atrophy. In a world with no death and no atrophication of skills or abilities, everyone who plays long enough will eventually master everything. We could have chosen death and/or atrophy, but schools and Trainers seemed like more fun.

David

[Aamer Khan]

Thank you for responding to this thread David.

I think you have hit on thing on the head. That where as the system we have today may not have been intended to allow all players to be all things simultaneously at that same power, you acknowledge that the investment in our characters needs to be considered, and adjustments still need to be made to help define the roles better.

I'm glad that the warcry comments were in reference to a future world and not Horizons.

One thing that would help us all is for you to outline the basic vision you will be working towards with any adjustments you make in the future. This will help allay fears and stop any negative speculation.

[David Bowman]

I'm going to continue posting thoughts on this topic in new posts, rather than edit and extend my previous posts (whenever I edit conspiracy theorists have sport with it).

The crafting system in Horizons is consistently praised. The fact that you can have crafting and adventure active at the same time is a positive example of multischooling. Within crafting, there is not the same concept of grouping that there is within adventure. Crafters can cooperate to be more efficient with their time, but the mechanics do not foster close, group-based crafting. Because of this, we felt comfortable allowing crafters to progress to eventually becoming masters of all crafts. Since the time (and therefore the effort)was spent in the acquisition of resources, it seemed that it would only be beneficial to allow master crafters of everything to exist. That the elder game for crafting would be in merchant behavior, not in creation. I would like to know what your opinions of the multischooling system in relation to crafting are.

David

[Levity]

I feel that the multischooling crafting is marvelous exactly as it is. It makes intuitive sense to me that one does not forget how to use a hammer just because one is studying the use of needle and thread, and that having learned to use a hammer to make one thing can carry over to skill at making a different thing.

More, given the sheer amount of work out there for crafters, and the unfortunately limited number of regularly active players, Istaria needs people to be able to wear several hats, as well as have the option of doing work themselves if funds are limited.

Relying on personal anecdote, the *most* coin I've ever had was nearly 2 gold, gotten through vault clearout and a lot of pawn farming just premerge in case money mattered for the plot auction. I generally float between 70 silver and 300 silver. No way is that enough to pay others to do my construction. But when I was building the new Sans AoP in Aiya, I decided it was rude to ask others to do all the masonry and carpentry, so I spent a few days at the oak and granite using my blacksmith knowledge to get my construction up to optimum on the slate and elm. (Whether one should be able to learn one skill by practicing another may be a separate discussion).

Now I can, with a lot of time and reboots after too much porting, build my own T II silo from scratch. That feels good. I can also help others build their lots without having to change my cargo armor due to changing a class; I just don't get xp for making and applying the units, and I don't do construction for the xp anyway.

Multicrafting also means there is always something more to do. None of my characters have ever worked flax/kenaf/etc. None have ever made armor or jewelery or potions or food of any description. But I know I could, if I choose, and I don't even have to abandon my main to do it.

In all the furor over the rumor of limiting multiclassing in HZ, everyone was talking about adventurers. Crafting multiclassing works so well that it simply did not spark serious worry it might be changed.

Now, in the past, the Suggestions forum has had threads on way to let crafters group. I think that would be a positive thing, so long as solo crafting remains the same.

-Levity Merrel, Crai Aisling, Sans AoP by Aiya's pad
100 Blacksmith/70 Fitter/45 Mason/45 Carpenter/97 Reaver

[Aamer Khan]

ok... here goes.

From a guild member perspective, I think it very good that some can become master crafters in everything. With skilled crafters leaving the game for various reasons, its good to have some with master level skills to take of the slack when a highlevel crafter must leave.

Economy wise, its not a big problem either, because the limits in the number of forms and techs we can scribe, jacks of all trades cannot effectively compete with dedicated crafters in the market place. So any problems with multischool crafters dominating any market gets regulated automatically.

Craft grouping has taken place during any community construction project, and is where this crafting system really shines. It draws players together in a common goal. And just like killing the satyr machines unified us, new events will do this with the crafting side of the game.

The only thing I think your going to hear alot, is to help make the lower level crafting experience less of a grind by restoring finishing machines to the starter islands.

[Levity]

I'd also like to briefly address Mr. Bowman's comment about "merchant behaviour."

I am not a numbers person. Discussions of RL business or the "broken game economy" leave me cold. So I cannot say if it is good or bad for merchants that any one person can eventually learn to make everything.

However, I think the reality is that very few complete "master crafters" exist. The number of formulae to learn, the different teched jewelery and cargo and tools needed, all can get prohibitive. Horizons is rich in variety when it comes to crafting.

So there are in fact specialists. On Order, if I want potions, I think of Zvah (or Bella or a couple of others, I'm just illustrating). Armor, I'd go to Ssilmath. I myself am working to learn the Tier V stuff relating to metal weapons and tools. I happen to be able to make the wood tools too, but am not actively attempting to acquire the relevant techs. My character's been a metalwork lover from day one, and I'm sticking to that. I even like doing cobalt, go figure.

However, there should not be forced specialization. A big enough demographic lets you have amazingly focussed specialists. People whose career is about doing one tiny thing in all its permutations. I love living in the modern world. Yet Istaria does not have that luxury. To make sure goods and services are available, everyone needs to have the potential to make those goods or provide those services.

Please let "merchant behavior" continue to be the guiding factor, and let the crafters get as knowledgeable as they care to.

-Levity

[Pharcellus]

After reading through the player responses I want to add that from a Role Playing perspective, it makes sense to me that characters who continue to study and practice new skills and abilities would continue to add to their breadth and depth of skills and abilities. We put Trainers into Horizons in order to provide a context for grouping skills and abilities together, and to provide a mechanism for placing limitations on power through a means other than a finite life-span with atrophy. In a world with no death and no atrophication of skills or abilities, everyone who plays long enough will eventually master everything. We could have chosen death and/or atrophy, but schools and Trainers seemed like more fun.

Breadth, yes. Depth is another matter. Breadth comes from Diversity. Depth comes from Focus.

For those who want to excel in one area, what do you say to them? Is the only way they can keep up going to be leaving behind Focus and multiclassing? For example, one of my toons is a Healer. That's pretty much all he wants to be, but he wants to be the best Healer he can be, maybe someday the "best in the land". He doesn't want to learn the ways of the Sword, or the Arcane paths of the Mage. He wants to limit his Diversity in deference to his Focus. How does your vision support his desires?

You see, there is a third limiting aspect to go with Death and Atrophy, and that is Focus vs Diversity.

[Kulamata]

I agree that players who play for forever should not become infinitely strong. The reason for my continuing concern is that the present system already limits power, and does so very well. I feel strongly that changes (if any) should be absolutely minimal.

I play Ranger, with Spiritist, Shaman, and Healer multi-classing. As Ranger, I will never wear plate, fling fiery bombs, mass mezz, Major Heal, Superior Heal/Resurrect, or use Blood Bolt. My area syphon is II, not V. And so on and on. The present system does exactly what should be done, and very cleverly. It is multi-layered, with distinctions between abilities, spells,class-defining spells and unmasterable abilities. From my experience, it is brilliantly designed and polished.

The rationale that full powers from multiple schools can be used simultaneously is simply not so.That rationale would open the door tolimitless changes to a system that really works very well.


Since crafting is so different, and in many cases pursued strongly by different players, perhaps a separate thread for that? And was this a four page thread?

[Phillip]

as of now you can do everything in that one class you are currently in. you CANNOT do everything in another school that you have taken, which you are NOT currently in. you CAN do some of the stuff, and not even the good stuff, but that's it.

to say that you can be everything and able to do everything is false. the current system is working out fine.

[Vahrokh]

Not that I feel that urge to change adv classes, but if I had to design a game, I believe thatthe best multiclass example would be... dragons (mostly equilibrated mix of skills and spells and stats that make them robust but not "extra, too much powerful") and that I liked more a model where your overall "power" = a fixed 100%. If you get 2 classes they would overall give you 50% and 50% (or 80% and 20% if you choose to raise one more that the other) of your power, 3 classes 33%. You'd still get your freedom to mold your toon like now and balancing would be easier since all would overall (ideally) be able to deal damage, heal, defend for a total of the same amount. The important would be to keep always at 100%, not 120% or 130% like now.

For craft, I'd love that a mason would level best doing ... blocks, not tools.
Likewise a fitter or one of the other many classes who must stick to tools and not in their true craft.

While I'd sincerely LOVE that crafting skills would progress the more you craft a piece, I'd like that crafting would be stripped away of the grinding factor and replace with a more "active role". I.e. making stuff in limited quantities that would give much more exp but require many more pieces or different sources to put together, so the time equation stays same as now.

[Pharcellus]

I would like to know what your opinions of the multischooling system in relation to crafting are.

Even though crafting is continuously given the "bum rap" for much of the game's ills by certain adventurers, I think crafting has been well-balanced with adventuring despite it.

I am taking my Healer toon I mentioned above and taking him to 100 in all craft schools. Why? Several reasons, the most important of which is due to the makeup of our guild. We are mostly Dragons, and the bipeds that are present are lower-level, or don't focus on specific crafting schools long enough to get to a high level to supply the guild's needs. So, I am looking to fill in all the gaps in the meantime. We're not a rich guild, and trying to save our money for lair plots and the like, so constantly having to go outside the guild for crafted gear is a significant drain on that. We also have a Tier V guildhall community that is still just over half done, and very few in the guild are doing construction classes, so I am filling that void as well. As such, my base aim to take all biped craft classes to 100 is out of necessity.

Originally, my character conception was to be a Confectioner. In December of 2003, I levelled Confectioner into my mid-20s, broke the Dawn "food cartel" (where Tier 1 food was going for 5-10 times the cost of Ambrosia) with over 12,000 servings of food on all the major consigners. It was funny to watch the cartel people buying up all my food and relisting it at their prices, only to have me put the same amount of new food up within 30 minutes on that consigner back at my prices again.

However, I have not levelled Confectioner in ages, as I am still L28 in that school. I intend to get back to it soon, but necessity has forced me to go down other avenues, against my character conception.

As for the economic angle, having even a few people like me around will be enough to wipe out the market. I can already make T5 potions and put them up on Consigners for 100cp each, or even offer to do them for free. That's already a huge problem in the Dragon Crafter area. There's little to no point in quoting prices anymore, as people will run back to the 4-5 Dragon Crafters who craft for free. Sure some people will tip well, others won't tip squat. I've been paid 10sp for 4 Tier V triple-teched scales (I supplied the materials and the labor, the customer supplied the tech comps). 2.5sp for a Tier V Triple-teched scale is such a bargain. Thanks, but I will go back to grinding gems for money, and they can go pay the 10sp to the "free guy".

The form limit really isn't. I have computed that it takes exactly 3 toons to be able to make everything in the game now, and still have room for future expansion. Dragon spellcrafter/scalecrafter; biped armorer, weaponsmith, fletcher, tailor; and another biped to take care of the rest. All 3 still have plenty of room in their formula book for Master forms and any specials that come down the pike. Not to mention that the formula limitation is already in the planning stages of being mitigated, so that won't even matter soon.

Lastly, my feelings on multiclassing for crafting parallel the ones for adventuring. Sure, someone may be the current alchemist of choice now, but there are several of them that are just as good, and nothing to distinguish one of them from another, except price competition. Focusing on a crafting school yields no advantage, and actually hurts the character in the long run, just like adventuring. There never will be any legendary Alchemists, just as there will never be any legendary Paladins, because everyone can attain the same amount of skill as the "best" in that field, often with less effort, if they are adding that class as a complement to their already established classes.

I guess my main problem with multiclassing boils down to the fact that the game design not only permits it, but requires it in order to be useful, competitive, and effective in the world against the highest challenges.

[PJ]

I've mostly kept my nose outta this weekends spate of threads and posts. But I'm going to disagree with one thing.

There never will be any legendary Alchemists, just as there will never be any legendary Paladins, because everyone can attain the same amount of skill as the "best" in that field,

I couldn't disagree more.

[Pharcellus]

as of now you can do everything in that one class you are currently in. you CANNOT do everything in another school that you have taken, which you are NOT currently in. you CAN do some of the stuff, and not even the good stuff, but that's it.

No, but everything you can do you can do really well, since all the stats and skills carry over. Gone are the days of having 7/level, 8/level, etc in a stat or skill as a balance to having 10/11 in your primary. Now, you CAN have your cake, and eat it too! with 10/11 in every stat and skill, max hp, max evasion, max armor use, etc.

to say that you can be everything and able to do everything is false. the current system is working out fine.

Yeah, it is working out so well with the hundreds and thousands of subscribers. [8-)] Where ya been, Phillip? Haven't seen ya around much lately....

[Pharcellus]

Nevermind.

[Jaraiden]

In the Open Letter topic (for reference)

The Warcry comment was intended to be something like this:

Them: What have you learned from Horizons and what would you change?

Me: The multischooling system has proven itself within Horizons. Since it was new, we were not certain it would work or prove to be a good system. The content for the system can and will be improved (the skill progression, abilities, spells, etc.), but the system gives players a method for growing their characters and retaining their social connections, reputations, and names. In the future, I'd like to make another world that uses the multischooling system, but this time apply the original intent that was missed in the content implementation of Horizons. When a character joins a school, they are choosing a role to play at that moment. Within that role, there are school defining abilities that will not transfer to any other schools. Each school must have such defining reserved abilities to be created. Other, general abilities can be mastered and remain active when other schools are joined. So, you can continue to grow your characters potential abilities, but you can only engage in one role at a time. Not become master of everything at any one moment. You might be master of everything, so that you can fill any role that is needed, but you won't fill all roles.

David

I see "retaining their social connections, reputations, and names" as directly associated with a role - Zvah for potions, Amoriel for healing, Aamer as a scout. This "role to play at the moment" is odd and only is a tool of game mechanics - a player masters 4 schools, well he/she can swap out based on need of a group (game mechanics) . . .characters say "we need a healer", "okay, let me switch schools." So, in time, more and more characters gain the reputation and thus name of blob in 4 schools, then 5 schools, etc. and just only need to seek a trainer and vault.

The abovedetracts from immersion of knowing who that character is. Fortunately there are limits so characters cannot be a "master of everything" with having all spells scribed and usable based on role-of-the-day design Horizons is now seen as.

So is now, "Is your role-of-the-day playing you." :: shrugs ::

So, are there plans to give dragon players more roles besides two generic ones?

And for players wanting to excel in one role - a base class like aWarrior . . . . where they seek not to fill other roles. Is there a system to reward such focus? Will a pure Warrior, through focused discipline and training, be as effective as a Warrior flinging off spells while swinging a blade?

[Joaqim]

Breadth, yes. Depth is another matter. Breadth comes from Diversity. Depth comes from Focus.

Yes and you can make a focus by removing breath or by adding depth. I'd personally prefer the last choice[;)]

[refuse]

Breadth, yes. Depth is another matter. Breadth comes from Diversity. Depth comes from Focus.

For those who want to excel in one area, what do you say to them? Is the only way they can keep up going to be leaving behind Focus and multiclassing? For example, one of my toons is a Healer. That's pretty much all he wants to be, but he wants to be the best Healer he can be, maybe someday the "best in the land". He doesn't want to learn the ways of the Sword, or the Arcane paths of the Mage. He wants to limit his Diversity in deference to his Focus. How does your vision support his desires?

You see, there is a third limiting aspect to go with Death and Atrophy, and that is Focus vs Diversity.

David/Tulga,
I think the above statement says volumes to the one major, underlying problem.

The end.

If the cap, or a system to allow unlimited advancement in a class was provided, then the "Depth" problem would be solved.

Right now, only bipeds can continue to spend XP beyond the cap. They theirfor mushroom out in classes to continue to spend XP. Dragon's don't have that option, and therefore are left in the dust.

If dragons/single class bipeds could spend XP beyond the level 100 (infinate as the game goes on infinately ;) ) they could gain depth. The cost, diversity. But they gain power, focus and definition. For the XP of 100/100 bipeda dragon might make 150 (guessing). They then have 50 more levels of dragon power, 50 levels of TPs, and stats and abilities. The dragon would have more focus, the biped more diversity. A biped that focused to level 150 would gain class focus, and power. They could be the tip of their class compared to their multi-classing friends. The biped at 100/100 would have 100 level stats. The 150s would have 150 level stats. The penatly for rating would start to slow the multi-classer down, allowing the single classer to continue to push on. More TPs, more abilities. They would find their image, their focus.

But with the current limit (and possibly 120 limit), the cap creates its own problem. What to do when you are maxxed?

Dragons compare themselves to the multi-classed bipeds. Look how powerful they are with a rating of 150. Look at what they can do.

And they are right, but for the wrong reasons. The dragons should be able to get to 150. But so should single class players.

The bipeds, look to the future and see the cap. Why not multi-class from the beginning? There is a cap, so you will hit it given enough time.

So is the design flawed? No, I don't think so.
The cap has created this problem. Previously it was hard to hit this cap. Lesser mobs, lesser xp, more to do (then just leve). Now we have easier levels, less to do, and we see these others who have hit the cap.

So changes to multi-classing/dragons/races should be done in the light of the game as it is.

If I am forced to hunt alone, because of the lack of other players, then let me be all that I need to be. If we have a reversal, and the numbers of players come back, then think about it. But just as crafters have issues (heck I have more crafting levels then adventurer) so do the adventurers.

Gone are the big hunting parties. Gone are the groups of low level players, gone are the guilds. But I keep playing. Picking up healing once the healers were gone. Picking up nature once the druids were gone. I need to be able to hunt, with/without a party.

Add to the game (see my other post about adding class defining items, quests and abilities) to promote single classed characters. Give them the nudge they need to stay single class.
1) Definition/focus, abilities that they want to use. Don't remove what they have. Fill in the holes.
2) A moving goal, not a glass ceiling. Even if they gain levels and a linear stat increase, it is still levels. Let them level the class.
3) A purpose. Why am I a blood mage? What reason is it to be a blood mage over a spiritist? What background/quests/reason do I have to be a blood mage. What makes a blood mage over a spiritist?

http://community.istaria.com/Web/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=56936


What about races? There are bipeds (grouped) and dragons! Why play a dryad, or a 1/2 giant, or an elf? What do they have? Dragons have a definition (even if it is bad) what makes an elf and elf? A dryad a dryad, and why is a high level dryad better then a low level dryad?

I thinkthe content/quest/lore can be tied together through the level quests. Tie the story into the quests. Explain the class through the quests (learn from blood golems for blood mages). Let them become the "blood mage" of legend by growing to the highest level blood mage. Or let them become the diverse player, a mixture of classes, the "Hero" who has become the jack of all trades master of none.

Racial quests on the level of RoP for bipeds (something that means they are different before and after) as well as class quests that change them would help players pick a class and stick with it.

But before any changes to multi-classing the classes have to be finished. How can we know what needs to be fixed when the classes aren't even done?

Look at the prestige classes (blood mage and sorcerer jump to mind) and wonder what they are prestige for? Why do people want to play them (besides the niftey description that isn't quite implmented).

Give each player a defining racial quest (one for RoP, one for ARoP for each race). Do the same for the classes. But let the players only do one. They have focus, power and ability that defines them, but they can switch as per your example to do what the group needs. But they know they would be alot better in their "main". Perhaps the group would suffer if they stay in their main, but it is more flavorful and fun to do it.

That is what I would like. Instead of being "Digit" biped blood mage/healer. I want to be Digit Dryad, the Blood Mage Dark Cleric. Something that means something. As it is, I just choose Dryad as they were different, and take classes to help when I am alone.

Help me enjoy being a dryad.
Help me enjoy being a blood mage.

Make being a dryad interesting and different.
if I was a 1/2 giant I would get a capacity increase, but I am a dryad I get XXXX.
Make being a Blood Mage interesting and different.
[i]ok, I took quest X at 10, and X+1 at 20, now do I take Y at 30, or do I do X+2 at 30? Well I really want to focus on my blood draining abilities, I will do X+2.[/]

Same for dragons, 1/2 giants, gnomes, dwarves, elves. . .
Same for mages, battle mages, sorcerers, elemental archerers, monks, Hellians and Lunus.

[Anima]

<waves!> Ooo, this thread is way to yummy to not post in.

My character theme: Pure caster

My Character build: 99th mage, 65th conjurer, 65, wizard, 65th sorcerer and 36th monk.

I hope to one day get 100th in all five of my classes, my original intent was just to level up sorcerer.. but, Sorcerer just diden't have enough fire power that diden't conflict with the ice type roots used for crowd control (binding crystals). Soooo, I found myself leveling wizard for the energy skill which does not conflict with the roots. Somewhere along the line I convinced myself to add Conjurer, mage and monk so I could get all the bells, whistles and defensive skills that would fit my theme.

Why? Because I wanted the option to solo or be useful in a group. Simple eh?

I really like being able to toss around Fire, ice, summoning, energy and mind spells.. but I would retire it all if Sorcerer had a larger variety of mind and ice spells to play with which allowed me to solo at a reasonable pace.

My opinion of the currentadventure/multiclass system? It works great in the fact that you can mix and match what you want, so you can play how you want.

Whatwould I fix about the Current Adventure/multiclass system? Add more spells with tapering specialization.. IE.school specific spells or spells only useable by classes that gain skill in the required skill for the spell. Ice bolt for mage, conjurer, sorcerer.. ect ect. Matter bolt for Conjurer and mage,Mind bolt for mage and Sorcerer.

~Crafting~

I'm a 100th confectioner with a few construction schools so I can kinda work on my own plot.

Confectioner is far from complete but I some how made it to 100th by doing trainer quests <ARG!>

My opinion of the current crafting system? I've never been a big fan of level restrictions on items, but, the system works and is enjoyable as is.

What would I fix about the current Crafting system? Make formulas require much more variety of items so I can level at the same speed but not have to pump outThousands of one item to do so.And promote inter crafting school relationships.

Example. Take something simple like a bronze short sword. The current formula just requires bronze bars, But a sword has a few other components like the handle, hilt, Sheath and possible decorations. Adding to the formula; wood, leather, cloth, dyesand possible gems and other precious metals.

Ok! /setpref mindlessramblingon false

<waves!>