There are two main systems for levels gains that I'm aware of

CF uses what I would call the old-school D&D style of levels gains where the value of your stat at the time of your level gain determines your permanent bonus for that level. The other system is the one where your max hp calculation includes a factor like level * statbonus and therefore may change if the stat changes.

I bring thing up to ask what the staff thinks of this second system.

I'm not convinced myself that it would be right for CF given all its nuances, but generally speaking I prefer the second system. I find that bonus-on-gain creates illogical incentives. For example, a human invoker who rolls minimum int, wis and con and doesn't train them will have somewhere around 12% more hp (via trains) than one who does train those stats while maintaining equal mana stores.

Secondly, I find that the spectre of con-loss is a disincentive to pk pre-hero. Now this only applies to those of us who suck, but I know that if I go out PKing regularly I'm going to die more than 3 times in 5 levels, which means I'm going to either have to increasingly gear for con to make up for it, or will end up with a small, but permanent disadvantage. This means that in the long run I'm better off just racing to hero.

There are a lot of repercussions of going to a system where hp maxes are calculated continuously, but it would fix the problems I've mentioned here and make the outcomes of stat choices more logical.

Any thoughts?

Stats are not just about hp and mana.

They also affect how fast you regen (which I personally find quite important).

They also affect how well you do certain things and how well you resist certain things.

>There are two main systems for levels gains that I'm aware
>of
>
>CF uses what I would call the old-school D&D style of levels
>gains where the value of your stat at the time of your level
>gain determines your permanent bonus for that level. The other
>system is the one where your max hp calculation includes a
>factor like level * statbonus and therefore may change if the
>stat changes.
>
>I bring thing up to ask what the staff thinks of this second
>system.
>
>I'm not convinced myself that it would be right for CF given
>all its nuances, but generally speaking I prefer the second
>system. I find that bonus-on-gain creates illogical
>incentives. For example, a human invoker who rolls minimum
>int, wis and con and doesn't train them will have somewhere
>around 12% more hp (via trains) than one who does train those
>stats while maintaining equal mana stores.

Sure, but is the 12% more hp worth the cost? I'm not sure
what is illogical about choosing to focus so strongly on one
element of the character that you handicap it in other ways.

>Secondly, I find that the spectre of con-loss is a
>disincentive to pk pre-hero. Now this only applies to those
>of us who suck, but I know that if I go out PKing regularly
>I'm going to die more than 3 times in 5 levels, which means
>I'm going to either have to increasingly gear for con to make
>up for it, or will end up with a small, but permanent
>disadvantage. This means that in the long run I'm better off
>just racing to hero.
>
>There are a lot of repercussions of going to a system where hp
>maxes are calculated continuously, but it would fix the
>problems I've mentioned here and make the outcomes of stat
>choices more logical.
>
>Any thoughts?

I can't tell if this reads "People shouldn't be able to train hp."
or "People should lose more con dying in hero range." Maybe both.

Either way, the second scenario isn't more fun the way people
actually play the game.

Qaledus

(the clarification for Durnominator is at the bottom)

>Sure, but is the 12% more hp worth the cost? I'm not sure
>what is illogical about choosing to focus so strongly on one
>element of the character that you handicap it in other ways.

The cost is wearing int/wis/con gear pre-hero. Yes, 12% hp is worth some minor, temporary inconvenience.

>I can't tell if this reads "People shouldn't be able to train
>hp."

Eliminating the ability to train hp would fix the problem. It would also be a much more fundamental change than what I'm suggesting.

>or "People should lose more con dying in hero range." Maybe
>both.

That would encourage people to PK pre-hero. It would not change the fact that avoiding PK pre-hero makes you more effective at hero.

>Either way, the second scenario isn't more fun the way people
>actually play the game.

My opinion differs.

General Clarification

The current system:

Every time you gain a level...
maxhp = maxhp + class + race + con_bonus

My suggestion

At all times...
maxhp = level * (class + race + con_bonus)

Right now your maxhp is based on what your con WAS. My way, your maxhp is based on what your con IS. Train your con, hp goes up. Lose some con, hp goes down. See nepenthe's subthread for caveats.

The same rule should apply to mana and int/wis.

Reason:
Dieing pre-hero costs you 3 1/3 maxhp per death if you are planning to use your trains for hp. In order to avoid this cost you can:

1. Not train hp
2. Wear con gear instead of gear that's effective for pk.
3. Carry separate gear for ranking and PK
4. Not die pre-hero.

1 and 2 are a significant competetive disadvantage.
3 may not be possible, may be a competetive disadvantage is prone to error and may be a royal pain in the ass
4 implies not seeking pk.

4 is the only option that isn't a competetive disadvantage. It is the logical choice if you're planning on eventually fighting at hero. The staff has said they want people to pk pre-hero. With this suggestion, dieing pre-hero costs no more or less than dieing at hero.

Similar logic applies to mana and int/wis:

At hero, max str/dex is important, but max int/wis isn't important. Every train is 10hp, so every point of int or wis above rolled is 10hp. A human mage can start out up to 8 points below max int/wis.

Consider two human mages:
Mage 1 rolls high int/wis/con, low str/dex, and maxes them all.
Mage 2 rolls low int/wis/con, high str/dex and maxes only str/dex.

Mage 1 spends 4 trains on int, 2 on wis, 3 on str, 3 on dex and 1 on con
Mage 2 spends 0 trains on int, 0 on wis, 2 on str, 2 on dex and 1 on con

Mage 1 has spent 130 hp on stats
Mage 2 has spent 50 hp on stats

Mages are supposed to be smart, but the less intelligent and wise mage is stronger at hero.

This applies to other races and classes as well. Particularly races that have more flexibility to trade int/wis for str/dex.

Okay, so that's not very brief, but at least the sentences are short.

But in your system, wouldn't a character that has died alot and has low con (let's say 6) have a significant hp advantage vs a new hero? I mean if it's based on what your con is now, wouldn't characters that are about to con die have like 100 natural hp?

Right, well that's what Nepenthe said, and I addressed that. To clarify my response:

Use another stat (call it hpfactor) for hp calculation.

At birth, hpfactor = con

Any time a character trains con
hpfactor= min(max_con, hpfactor+1)

maxhp formula:
maxhp = level * (class + race + hpfactor)

+/- con from affects and gear affect hpfactor
hpfactor isn't reduced on death

Note:
You could replace

hpfactor = min( max_con, hpfactor+1 )
(any training of con will increase maxhp, until hpfactor=max_con)

with

hpfactor = max (hpfactor, con)
(their con has to reach a new high point for them to realize any benefit to maxhp)

if you prefer the latter.

Edit:
Stupid smilies

.

>>Sure, but is the 12% more hp worth the cost? I'm not sure
>>what is illogical about choosing to focus so strongly on one
>>element of the character that you handicap it in other ways.
>
>The cost is wearing int/wis/con gear pre-hero. Yes, 12% hp is
>worth some minor, temporary inconvenience.

I think you're discounting the opportunity cost of learning/regen
rates compared to the availability of other stat gear too much.

Are you saying regen and learning rates don't use the adjusted values? Or are you saying there isn't much stat gear? The former I don't know about, but there definitely is plenty of int/wis gear.

I think it places a much, much higher incentive than the current system for a wider set of characters to delete as they start to lose con, even though it makes sense.

I was about to address that in the original post but decided to leave it out. Here was my potential solution:

When calculating maxhp don't use con, but use:

A totally broken formula like this:
hpbonus = con + num_deaths / 3 + con_train_counter_fudge

Each time they train con, increment con_train_counter in such a way that it you don't get stupid things like dieing gives you more hp than not dyeing. This way hp won't go down based on con-loss via death, but will go down in other circumstances.

final edit:
This formula is broken. I've edited a few times now. What matters is the idea, which I hope is somewhat clear. Bottom line, you use fudge factor that compensates for their having died. I don't know why I tried to write a formula in the first place instead of just explaining it better. Maybe just read the second one which I think makes more sense.

Another way to think of it is via a lifepoints stat. At birth lifepoints = con
When training con, also do:
lifepoints = min(lifepoints + 1, maxcon)
Then maxhp is caluclated with lifepoints instead of con, but saves, regen, permanent death and so forth are all still based on con. lifepoints doesn't go down when you die.

I'm not saying this is a terrible or unsalvagable idea, but at the moment it seems like a lot of work for something that I'm not sure is better or more fun than the current system.

It was that adjusted stats didn't count, or didn't count much, so that not training to max was a serious permanent detriment to the life of a character. This was recently changed, no doubt some work, not a ton of benefit, but certainly well appreciated. Same with shifters leveling in form. This used to be a large pain, now it is a non-factor.

I would support this idea if only because pking at lower levels (something I enjoy) is always mitigated by 2 things: Do I really want my spare trains to go to con instead of hp, and do I have spare trains to begin with.

Now with gear counting as natural, ranking up with lower con isn't as big a drawback as it once was, but still some people get stuck/are newbies/etc and end up with like 10 con at level 35. These characters are already fighting an uphill battle being that much closer to con death, plague poison saves, and rot, and whatever else takes con into effect, that I don't really think that they should also be permanently handicapped with lower hp.

Perhaps I'm not quite understanding his suggestion, but I'd be all for hp gains being based on race and not on current con.

>Perhaps I'm not quite understanding his suggestion, but I'd be
>all for hp gains being based on race and not on current con.

No, that's basically what I'm talking about. The boost to lowbie pk was one of my two major selling points. The staff complain about people not taking a from-birth-to-hero approach to the game, it seemed to me that this would help people be interested in taking some risks in the lower levels and getting into the action from the start, without having to worry that it'll put them at a disadvantage compared to people who just raced to hero.

However, I wouldn't do away with the con-hp relationship altogether.

>It was that adjusted stats didn't count, or didn't count
>much, so that not training to max was a serious permanent
>detriment to the life of a character. This was recently
>changed, no doubt some work, not a ton of benefit, but
>certainly well appreciated. Same with shifters leveling in
>form. This used to be a large pain, now it is a non-factor.
>

There is a huge difference between coding these two things. To change whether it is natural or modified stat, all you need to do is to change a formula akin to (ch->perm_stat_con + ch->modified_stat_con) / 2 into a simple check of modified stat. Same applies for being shifted, since a simple change of what stat to refer is all that needs to be made. In fact, it requires hardly any testing at all, since all you need to do is gain a few levels on the test server, and you can be 99% sure it's working fine. In the other occasion, you need to make sure every single place that handles the change of con somehow (or the appropriate stat), will also change hp. In the worst case scenario, something is left unnoticed, and a weird bug will result in a charachter getting permanently more/less hp due to a bug. To make a comparison to how long the coding would take, I'd say making the first change takes about the time it does to read a single forum thread. The latter one (including testing) takes about the time of writing mayby three new skills (including testing)

>Now with gear counting as natural, ranking up with lower con
>isn't as big a drawback as it once was, but still some people
>get stuck/are newbies/etc and end up with like 10 con at level
>35. These characters are already fighting an uphill battle
>being that much closer to con death, plague poison saves, and
>rot, and whatever else takes con into effect, that I don't
>really think that they should also be permanently handicapped
>with lower hp.
>
>Perhaps I'm not quite understanding his suggestion, but I'd be
>all for hp gains being based on race and not on current con.

In the end, this sounds like something that would be time spent on making something different, but not necessarily a lot better.

>I'm not saying this is a terrible or unsalvagable idea, but
>at the moment it seems like a lot of work for something that
>I'm not sure is better or more fun than the current system.

Understood. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to see the benefit in much else with the glare from a major shaman revamp in my eyes either.

Maybe sometime down the road you, or someone else can revisit the idea. I do agree that this isn't a significantly important issue, though it is small annoyance that affects every character. Plus I like idea of increasing the tactical significance of reducing int/wis/con, since right now it's only very rarely useful.

Ah well, at least I'm glad I didn't get the "your idea is so unimaginably stupid I'm only replying so that you will never have to mention it again" which could be the alternative.

>Understood. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to see the benefit in
>much else with the glare from a major shaman revamp in my eyes
>either.

Who said major shaman revamp?

(I mean, I know I used the phrase, but I didn't say we were working on one.)