(possible) New Idea (in General)


TBH never enough gabber January 28 2007 6:34 PM EST

Just had A thought and it goes like this;

there is us, we control our characters who control our minions, and wehave all sorts of available ugrades and flash stuff for our minions, but would it be possible to "train" our characters with slight enhancements that affect the entire team. I was thinking like, small percentage to PTH, Damage, AC, stuff like that. Please tell me if you see any future in this idea at all, or wether i'm stark raving mad(er).

Thanks TBH

bartjan January 28 2007 6:39 PM EST

Haste, Giant Strength, Protection?

TheHatchetman January 28 2007 6:41 PM EST

DX, ST, and Protection not good enough?

TheHatchetman January 28 2007 6:43 PM EST

oops... i swear bartjan's comment wasn't there when i replied... i just typed too slow :P

TBH never enough gabber January 28 2007 6:47 PM EST

those skills are on your minions, i'm thinking more like one off when you start on your character type deal.

AdminLamuness January 28 2007 6:47 PM EST

What TBH means basically a global enchantment that is applied to all minions. But for things like PTH, dmg, and AC we already have enchantments that augment that. Therefore, for your idea to work, we would need a whole new set of enchantments. For example, a global enchantment that gives DD +x% and HP -x% to all the minions. Sure mages would get a boost, but all minions lose hp. Something along those lines.

bartjan January 28 2007 6:47 PM EST

Protection, Haste and Giant Strength already apply to the whole team.

Wasp [Demon Forging] January 28 2007 7:20 PM EST

You talking about a team skill. Maybe you start your team as an archer and you get a 5% bonus to any dexterity and the skill archery trained. If you want your team to be a heavy tank you'd maybe have a team skill that grants 5% endurance to the minion with the highest strength. Same goes for a mage team, 5% DD. Maybe these could be changed slightly to make for a difference in the game, changing these skills would maybe have some sort of penalty. Perhaps it will cost maybe over 250,000 exp to train it. I dunno. Sounds good.

TBH never enough gabber January 29 2007 5:56 AM EST

yes wasp that's what i was going for, something like that, and you could have it that as well as costing 250,000k xp to train you could have that it also costs money for ones that offer a bigger advantage

AdminShade January 29 2007 6:55 AM EST

Why would you want to gain a 5% bonus to your Archery, if 3 of your 4 minions are mages or enchanters?

Why would you want to gain a 5% bonus to your DD if you only have 1 mage?


Imo these things can be easier and cheaper accomplished by just training the normal skills and spells...

QBOddBird January 29 2007 7:51 AM EST

I get what you are saying, but...

if every mage, tank, and archer does this and gets stronger by 5% (and of course everyone would), then how is there any advantage gained for anyone? Everyone's just a tiny bit stronger...

QBsutekh137 January 29 2007 10:38 AM EST

Well, I think they would have to be more "class" based, like a "merchant" class gets better money rewards, but less experience, and maybe gets a tiny forging bonus.

In other words, the classes would have nothing to do with actual combat. For example, a warrior class would be silly, because then all tanks would be warriors. The classes would have to be related to a character, yet entirely separate from battle, so as to generate choice. Make it so that a mage team and a tank team might very well be in the same "class", because it benefits the long-term goals of both (depending on user).

Maybe "class" is the wrong word, more of a type... Here are some really stupid ideas, but maybe they flesh out a little more what I am thinking (and hopefully not getting too off-topic)...

Noble: Gains more money from battles, but less experience.
Cleric: Heal costs are free.
WeaponMaker: Ammo is cheaper.
Mercantiler: Transfer costs are always half.

Now, with clans, wacky times, RoE, NUB/NCB, etc. a lot of these ideas seem redundant. The point I am trying to make is that there are certain things that are outside of battle but still have a large impact on long-term viability of a team. Adding choices to those aspects, via Gabber's "class" idea, could be a whole other layer. OB, you are correct, why just inflate everything? But in essence, that's what clans already do. As a singleton clan, I still get 11-12% bonus while other clans get 14-15%...not much difference. It's just kind of a silly no-brainer, a "must-do" already. As long as the new layer has trade-offs, I think it could make the game richer. My ideas are just lame, that's all. Anyone else have better ideas on "classes" and non-battle game-play aspects that they could affect?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] January 29 2007 11:09 AM EST

Sute, would cleric mean you earn more from fights, while not losing XP? ;)

Gandalf January 29 2007 12:01 PM EST

I like the idea but on the basic terms yeah i agree with OB, everyone is going to be stronger, so no real point, there probably is some just i don't like reading the 50 lenth lines. *smile*

QBsutekh137 January 29 2007 12:16 PM EST

Well, pretty much any addition to the game means the potential for "everyone to just get stronger". Adding amulets to the game made it easier for people with money to pump their characters, for example. It was just a brand new thing, so of course it was essentially additive.

Did adding Junction "make everyone stronger"? I mean, everyone can use it if they want, right? Not really. To use Junction requires trade-offs, requires a certain type of build, etc.

If this class idea were the same way, with actual choice, then it wouldn't just be "making everyone stronger". At least no more than clans already do. I don't understand why people dismiss an idea as just being a global buff but then talk about how much they love clans -- to me, clans are a global buff too, just making everyone that much bigger.

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] January 29 2007 12:30 PM EST

I agree with sutekh. It is certain that if you were to add only 3 of these ''class traits'', everybody would just get the same buff, making everybody stronger. But with a variety of those, it would work out exactly as skills and spells do, and add a strategic element to the setup of your team. Putting different pros and cons to each trait is what would make em behave like spells and skills, that way, every trait has a weakness.

Choice and downsides make 'traits' anything but a universal buff, IMO, and just expands the whole Rock, Paper, Scissors thing about CB.

What makes clans such a universal buff is that they have no ''cons'', and big ''pros'', and that differenciates them from the idea I have of ''classes''.

AdminNightStrike January 29 2007 12:42 PM EST

This is almost straight out of D&D where your character can have have certain flaws or traits. Sometimes they are referred to virtues and vices. For example, you can play a character that has super human strength (ie, some bonus to strength), but lacks focus, and takes a penalty to dexterity. The key is tradeoff, balance.

TH3 C0113CT0R January 30 2007 12:12 PM EST

I like it.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00216U">(possible) New Idea</a>