[MUD-Dev] defeating twinking through game mechanics

Wed Apr 19 09:07:44 CEST 2000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0120_01BFA9DE.B9837FE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is a tangent topic to a thread started by raph and going on with =
the EQ designers on mud-dev.

One of the design failures IMO in everquest is that it follows the old =
'weaponcode' model of weapon damage.  I.e. one hits for the 'max damage' =
of the weapon rather than any sort of measure of player skill.  This =
means the weapon is tantamount.  Nothing matters except for the weapon =
stats, in the end.  With armor the same way, you have created a game =
where heavy twinking is inevitable. =20

I'll throw out an alternative system here, and let you guys kick it =
around.  We did something like this on EOTL, but I think it could have =
been better.  The best system I have seen was on the shattered worlds =
mudlib, all praise Dredd!

The basic idea is to have weapon archetypes, and then bonuses.  The =
bonuses reflect magical power, fine weapons, artifacts.  The limitation =
to twinking here is that a poor player won't be able to exploit the =
benefits of more powerful weapons such that each weapon would have =
several factors (speed, damage, weight, accuracy) and modifiers. =20

Your basic rusty newbie weapon might be (-speed,--damage,-accuracy), and =
that newbie would benefit from a weapon with no minuses.  however a =
(+speed, +damage) weapon would not benefit them since at their _skill_ =
level they cannot exploit the bonuses.

The other bonus of such a system is you have a single clear metric for =
balancing reward.  The total bonus of a weapon should be exponentially =
linked to the rarity.   With such a clear metric, there's no doubt in =
the designer's mind when they give an 'orc' a weapon with a total bonus =
of (3).

Likewise armor needs to be balanced vs. player skills.  If you put the =
finest platemail on a totally inexperienced fighter, giving them the =
same protection as a trained warrior devalues the effort of training =
that warrior. =20

So, in sum, I see this issue as one of affordances.  We create the =
system that enables twinking.  It wouldn't be an issue if the game =
didn't reward it.

------=_NextPart_000_0120_01BFA9DE.B9837FE0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3616.1301"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#c0c0c0>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>This is a tangent topic to a thread =
started by=20
raph and going on with the EQ designers on mud-dev.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>One of the design failures IMO in =
everquest is=20
that it follows the old 'weaponcode' model of weapon damage.  I.e. =
one hits=20
for the 'max damage' of the weapon rather than any sort of measure of =
player=20
skill.  This means the weapon is tantamount.  Nothing matters =
except=20
for the weapon stats, in the end.  With armor the same way, you =
have=20
created a game where heavy twinking is inevitable.  </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I'll throw out an alternative system =
here, and=20
let you guys kick it around.  We did something like this on EOTL, =
but I=20
think it could have been better.  The best system I have seen was =
on the=20
shattered worlds mudlib, all praise Dredd!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>The basic idea is to have weapon =
archetypes, and=20
then bonuses.  The bonuses reflect magical power, fine weapons,=20
artifacts.  The limitation to twinking here is that a poor player =
won't be=20
able to exploit the benefits of more powerful weapons such that each =
weapon=20
would have several factors (speed, damage, weight, accuracy) and=20
modifiers.  </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Your basic rusty newbie weapon might =
be=20
(-speed,--damage,-accuracy), and that newbie would benefit from a weapon =
with no=20
minuses.  however a (+speed, +damage) weapon would not benefit them =
since=20
at their _skill_ level they cannot exploit the bonuses.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>The other bonus of such a system is =
you have a=20
single clear metric for balancing reward.  The total bonus of a =
weapon=20
should be exponentially linked to the rarity.   With such a =
clear=20
metric, there's no doubt in the designer's mind when they give an 'orc' =
a weapon=20
with a total bonus of (3).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Likewise armor needs to be balanced =
vs. player=20
skills.  If you put the finest platemail on a totally inexperienced =

fighter, giving them the same protection as a trained warrior devalues =
the=20
effort of training that warrior.  </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>So, in sum, I see this issue as one =
of=20
affordances.  We create the system that enables twinking.  It =
wouldn't=20
be an issue if the game didn't reward it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0120_01BFA9DE.B9837FE0--

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev