DeletedUser
this idea is rubbish, it seems like you want a super character that beats all the others and gets tons of bonuses.
i don't really think it's fair
i don't really think it's fair
DeletedUser
I dont think he wanted super bonuses, i think he wanted a realalistic new class that could be added.
DeletedUser
As he has already said he is going to rework the bonuses based on the discussion so far, it seems that isn't his intention.
Read the whole thread before shooting off your mouth.
DeletedUser
I really can't stand overpowered classes in multiplayer games, so to want one would be rather hypocritical of me. I think my original intention was to suggest a class that could defend against duelists without being one (or, a soldier). Unfortunately, this is impossible... Being defensive is akin to being more offensive, so I scrapped the entire premise of a "safe" class.
I'll be the first to concede that we don't need another dueling class.
I'll be the first to concede that we don't need another dueling class.
DeletedUser
I don't know that that's true. The specific suggestion you gave had that effect, but there could be others which don't suffer from that affliction. It's a tricky thing though. I don't have any alternative suggestions in mind.
DeletedUser
Both of these issues actually occurred to me, and my thought was that to a certain extent they balance each other out.
Also, even though some good clothing can be used earlier, the buying prices are still something of a barrier because earning money is harder at lower levels. In effect, an Entertainer could gain access to better jobs a little bit quicker, giving him more potential for earning XP (as the workers' bonus does) and for earning more cash (as the adventurers' bonus does).
In terms of the bonus becoming less useful as time goes on, I think virtually all the bonuses are like that. Once you are doing high level jobs and riding around on quarter horses etc, the bonuses are relatively insignificant.
In terms of dueling, yes, these players could spend money on gear that boosts their dueling stats, but that would be a cost/benefit question for the player. Anyone who sets up an Entertainer as a dueller will gain duelling levels quite quickly and will only be able to fight those with the same gear they have (with less skill points.)
Those are my thoughts anyway, and why I said I think it is reasonably balanced. But I haven't gone through all the clothing lists and crunched all the numbers so my estimation could be off.
Anyway, I was just throwing a couple of alternate ideas out there, so if it isn't liked, or everyone thinks it is imbalanced, that's cool.
Violette, if you don't mind, I'd like to revise my bonuses in the initial post, somewhat based on your ideas. As with any collaborative thread, I can't and don't want full credit for the post, obviously.
S'all good. The whole point of getting the feedback is to build on the initial idea.
DeletedUser
I don't like it... I love it!
besides I think they should introduce new classes to the game, it will make people want to start new worlds more to try out new classes.
besides I think they should introduce new classes to the game, it will make people want to start new worlds more to try out new classes.
DeletedUser3773
An idea to make an entertainer a bad dueler but hard to kill, is to take the average of Appearance and tactic and make that their dodge
So if they have 20 Appearance and 10 tactic in a duel they would have 15 dodge andNotactic or Appearance counted in duel (basically they are only good at dodging things but can't hit or damage a fly)
So if they have 20 Appearance and 10 tactic in a duel they would have 15 dodge andNotactic or Appearance counted in duel (basically they are only good at dodging things but can't hit or damage a fly)
DeletedUser
We DO need another dueling class!
Bobby: your suggestion does not make the entertainer a bad dueler at all.
Imagine doing an shooting/apperance build where you could still work apperance jobs and get the DODGE bonus out of it?!
Utterly unbalanced, and poorly thought out.
Bobby: your suggestion does not make the entertainer a bad dueler at all.
Imagine doing an shooting/apperance build where you could still work apperance jobs and get the DODGE bonus out of it?!
Utterly unbalanced, and poorly thought out.
DeletedUser
I'm sure there are ways to create a "wall" class that don't also provide wicked tanking opportunities. The problem is, unless you introduce "penalties" to the game, making a class strong against duelers also provides an avenue for souping the character up offensively, as well. This would -- as speculated by others -- create the "ultimate dueler."
I'm almost ashamed that I once thought that limiting how often an opponent could duel you was a good idea. Eek. I thank all involved for the collective face-slap. I needed it.
I really don't think The West should implement dueling "penalties" for classes. Period. Anyone should be able to duel if they feel like it, regardless of class. Likewise, anyone should be at risk of being dueled (and losing). Any deviation from that dynamic could open the game to exploits, frustration and boredom. I mean, every game carries these flaws, but to proactively allow more of them... well, that would be no good.
I am 99.5% happy with the entertainer class being able to purchase and equip items more easily and work Charisma-based jobs before they normally would. Like Violette said, the benefit of such bonuses would be balanced by the downside: that buying stuff still requires a great deal of cash. Purchasing items from foreign shops would -- at best -- still cost double what your own shops would charge. If an entertainer wants to tour the world and buy items from various foreign towns' shops, they're still going to have to play very intelligently.
...In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to upping the discount to 33%/66%, although this wouldn't be a friendly number for in-head-math (for some people, at least). Purchasing a $5000 ($20,000) item from a foreign shop for "only" $6800 is still going to burn a cute little hole in your pockets!
DeletedUser
It does save you the leaving your town, and joining their town though.
DeletedUser
It also saves you from making donations to their treasury... although the donations are usually pretty trivial. Of course, the inherent human-factor benefit is that you don't have to message councilors, wait until they respond, accept their terms, wait 2-X hours between leaving and joining, or be told "We have no spots left, sorry!" The worst is when you are looking for a specific item, and none of the councilors you message ever respond. When a world has reached a critical mass, at around 2 months in, many towns are maxed out, and don't have a need for donations. These towns' items are basically off-limits to the average player (can anyone spot me $21,600 for a Lincoln's Top Hat?). This would be a counter to that.
OH! I forgot to mention: remember that you can only access foreign shop items 2 levels below the shop's actual level. So, while the shopping discount bonus is pretty nifty, it won't do a thing for you if you're looking for a Black Shawl or Fancy Riding Boots. Call it a built-in bonus-balancer.
OH! I forgot to mention: remember that you can only access foreign shop items 2 levels below the shop's actual level. So, while the shopping discount bonus is pretty nifty, it won't do a thing for you if you're looking for a Black Shawl or Fancy Riding Boots. Call it a built-in bonus-balancer.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Towns automatically receive a cut of shop sales to out-of-towners.
DeletedUser
Right, but it's nowhere close to the standard $250 many towns require in donations. Wait... am I playing devil's advocate against myself? Snap.
Um, well, this is a good opportunity to state that I think towns should get a bigger cut of sales to foreigners. I know this is a trade/business topic, so I'll shut up... NOW.
DeletedUser
I had another thought while eating a Gyro (mmm).
Disclaimer: This is just a thought.
Bonus: An opponent may only challenge you to a duel once every 12/24 hours SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT CHALLENGE ANY PLAYER TO A DUEL.
So, this has two self-balancing effects:
1. You cannot retaliate after being dueled (if you want to benefit from the bonus)...
2. Likewise, repetitively attacking a player completely negates the bonus' effect.
Scenario: I challenge Player A and lose. Player A retaliates. He cannot duel me again for 12/24 hours. BUT, I then challenge a player (any player, not just Player A) 20 minutes later. The time counter ends and I can be dueled again by Player A (or any player) as though the bonus doesn't exist.
So really, all this bonus would do is prevent individual players from repetitively attacking you. It doesn't allow you to repetitively attack them. In order for the bonus to function, you're forced to "turn the other cheek" if you are dueled. If anything, this bonus is nominally useful. It doesn't prevent several duelers from tag-teaming you. Also, if you duel (at all) after being challenged, 12/24 is thrown out of the window (unless you're dueled again, then you do not duel after that, and so on).
Again... it's just a wee thought. I'm not even sure the bonus is even that useful, but the amendment does prevent Entertainers from becoming "super-duelists."
Disclaimer: This is just a thought.
Bonus: An opponent may only challenge you to a duel once every 12/24 hours SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT CHALLENGE ANY PLAYER TO A DUEL.
So, this has two self-balancing effects:
1. You cannot retaliate after being dueled (if you want to benefit from the bonus)...
2. Likewise, repetitively attacking a player completely negates the bonus' effect.
Scenario: I challenge Player A and lose. Player A retaliates. He cannot duel me again for 12/24 hours. BUT, I then challenge a player (any player, not just Player A) 20 minutes later. The time counter ends and I can be dueled again by Player A (or any player) as though the bonus doesn't exist.
So really, all this bonus would do is prevent individual players from repetitively attacking you. It doesn't allow you to repetitively attack them. In order for the bonus to function, you're forced to "turn the other cheek" if you are dueled. If anything, this bonus is nominally useful. It doesn't prevent several duelers from tag-teaming you. Also, if you duel (at all) after being challenged, 12/24 is thrown out of the window (unless you're dueled again, then you do not duel after that, and so on).
Again... it's just a wee thought. I'm not even sure the bonus is even that useful, but the amendment does prevent Entertainers from becoming "super-duelists."
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I had to read the whole post before it sank in that you were proposing this only for the new entertainer class. (Duh -- I'm getting sleepy, LOL.) I was about to evaluate it as a general restriction... and I'm not sure what I would think about it in that vein.
As a bonus just for entertainers, yeah, I guess it would do what you said. Interesting thought. It wouldn't take much code, just an added query against the entertainer's dueling records when the entertainer tried to schedule a duel or when someone tried to schedule a duel vs. them.
DeletedUser
Thanks, Luap Nor. Being a product development and support lead for my company, I always try to look at feature suggestions from a "how long are the developers going to have to go without sleeping?" and "are we talking $10,000 or $100,000?" standpoint.
I wish more people knew how software development worked. There's nothing rainbow-and-butterflies about it!! :nowink:
I wish more people knew how software development worked. There's nothing rainbow-and-butterflies about it!! :nowink:
DeletedUser
My background in software dev is almost nil, but I've studied and worked with computers and programming for so many years, including a SQL server for a couple of those years, that it's not difficult to anticipate some of these things from the structural angle. Not many other participants here seem to know that kind of thing (which is no slight on them; it's pretty nerdy stuff), so I try to pitch in some geekspeak now and then to illuminate that side of the proposals. Glad it's appreciated.
DeletedUser
Luap, you are far from the only person here with db experience.
I don't think any bonus that's going to affect dueling times is going to fly no matter what you add to it. Even if you make it so it isn't abusable, it just isn't realistic. There's no legitimate reason you give for entertainers not being duelable as often as anyone else.
I don't think any bonus that's going to affect dueling times is going to fly no matter what you add to it. Even if you make it so it isn't abusable, it just isn't realistic. There's no legitimate reason you give for entertainers not being duelable as often as anyone else.
DeletedUser
My strange, back-alley train of thought was that being attractive, friendly and a bit odd would keep predators at bay... However, it's THE OLD WEST. Nobody's safe in THE WEST. Starring Nicholas Cage.
Nicholas Cage? I couldn't have come up with a better actor for my faux film reference? Shame.
Nicholas Cage? I couldn't have come up with a better actor for my faux film reference? Shame.