Suggestion talk:20070721 Class Differentiation
Talk
The examples I used there were extreme to show the point that I was trying to make. I also stated that the point I was making was that there should just be a difference between classes that mattered past the first few levels (not how big or small or even WHAT the difference should be). Any other well rounded role playing game has different classes that actually make a difference throughout the leveling sequences. A ranger is going to get bow skills while a fighter will not. All classes can use magic, but a mage will be better at it. That is all I mean. Anyway, it would just create a little diversity. If nothing else it would make having multiple characters more interesting. Why shouldn't people have to make a choice when they first start playing? It's not as if they can't just make another character if they decide they don't like the one they started with. This game is free after all. Plus it fits with a certain level of believability and role playing. For example, a doctor is not going to be able to shoot as well as an army soldier or a cop (in most cases). This is simply because he spends his time being a doctor. Of course being surrounded by zombies all the time will give him or her the opportunity to get in some practice, but for the sake of role-playing a doctor will probably spend more time healing zombie-mauled survivors than honing his shooting skills. This is just for the sake of role-playing folks. I know it's nice to be a jack of all trades, but there needs to be some kind of combat advantage to being a cop over a lab assistant (on the flip side how many cops do you know that you would want to read your lab results and tell you if you have cancer or just herpes)? The pluses and minuses of initial choices should be continuous through any good role-playing game. And if you want to switch classes or dual-class, there should be HUGE minuses to go along with the advantage of having multiple skill trees. This would help out the zombies as well. Wouldn't it be nice to know that not every single person who is level 40 is going to be able to blow your head clean off with only 20-25 AP? It makes sense doesn't it? Level 40 army soldiers are more dangerous than level 40 consumers. Maybe not by much, but at least a little. I know I got off on a rant, and I am not saying the game is no good unless this happens. I just didn't think that the reasons you guys came up with for killing my suggestion were very good. -Jacamo
- The suggestions page isn't a place just to make points. It is a place to put suggestions that should be ready to be inserted into the game 'as in'. If you want to make points, start a debate elsewhere. If you'd like to see this, but want some input from others as to how it should happen, then take your proto-idea to the Developing Suggestions page.
You are confusing the word 'level' as it is used on most RPGs with how it is used in Urban Dead. In UD it just represents the number of skills you have. It gives players a quick estimate of which players are better than others (though they have to look at the actual skills if they want more info than that). 'Levels' in other most other RPGs represent how powerful each character is in their grade/profession. You should stop looking at what word mean (or what you think them mean) and look at that function they perform. Different classes already have an affect on how characters START the game (which can be the hardest part, before they get a few basic skills), and after that it can affect how they level up (due to the Scientist/Militarty 75/150 XP cost divide). Players who manage to get all the skills then can then still player in a large variety of ways. If different character classes had PERMANENT differences, you'd be forcing them to meta-game (effectively) since they'd be specialised to a certain type of gameplay, without the option to play differently (except by starting a fresh character). Meta-gaming isn't something which is supported very well INSIDE Urban Dead, it is done most efficiently outside of Urban Dead (forums, chatrooms, etc). Don't force people to meta-game when UD doesn't support it. 'arm. 07:59, 22 July 2007 (BST)- I guess am not really taking into consideration that, for the most part, we are on our own even if there are other people around because usually they aren't logged on. It would make it more difficult, but I just don't see much of a point to having different classes as the game is now. The first few skills are earned by either killing, healing, or dna scans depending on class, but once my lab assistant has hand to hand and axe prof, and the shopping skill, one way is no easier than the other to gain experience. What is the difference between having a cop or a private? A bullet proof vest. What's the point? A private can just go to a cop shop and find one in one day. I just think it would be more interesting if the classes had differences that lasted farther into the skill gathering process. I like the game. It is fun, but variety is the spice of life. The permanant differences don't have to be drastic. Just present. What if soldiers started 3% better at shooting than everyone else and stayed that way throughout, for example? Each class would have a slight advantage for a class specific skill. Cops could have another 3% in hand to hand, consumers 5% more chance to find FAK (or something), doctors could heal another 5 on top of everyone else. Lab assistants can produce revives for 15. Firemen can do 4 damage with axe. Are these more reasonable?
On another note, I didn't realize that there were other venues to discuss suggestions aside from just suggesting them. Sorry for the fowl up. Chalk that one up to stoopid noobie? -Jacamo- You'd have to take into account that your changes would presumably be retro-active - i.e. they would all of a sudden affect all players at the moment. This might make them hostile to a change like this. You'd have to really careful balance the boost to each class (or nerf to each class?), and justify why you feel they are balanced.
Whilst there is some merit in a concept such as yours, the current system allows players to change their playing style at anytime, or even swap sides (survivor>>zombie and vice versa) without being penalised with respect to other players. This means all players can experience the diversity of UD without having to start a new player in order to take full advantage of playing that style/side.
A major concern would be how this would affect newbies. Newbies would have no idea how each class will affect their gameplay later on (not being familiar with UD). You are effectively forcing them to play for a while until they figure out what style they want to play, and them make a whole new character from scratch. Being a new character is hard, and often frustrating. At the moment, all that newbies learn (hopefully) is what choice they might have preferred to start with instead (giving them an option for a new character?).
You compare this sort of permanent class change to mage/fighter/thief/other-generic-RPG-class, however the comparison isn't a direct one. If you've played just one standard RPG then you are familiar with the bonuses that each class brings, and how this might affect your gameplay. UD is very different, and so you'd need to be familiar with it know how different bonuses affect gameplay. So this still mainly affects newbies in a potentially negative way, whilst adding something of dubious 'benefit' to the game. 'arm. 15:45, 22 July 2007 (BST)
- You'd have to take into account that your changes would presumably be retro-active - i.e. they would all of a sudden affect all players at the moment. This might make them hostile to a change like this. You'd have to really careful balance the boost to each class (or nerf to each class?), and justify why you feel they are balanced.
- I guess am not really taking into consideration that, for the most part, we are on our own even if there are other people around because usually they aren't logged on. It would make it more difficult, but I just don't see much of a point to having different classes as the game is now. The first few skills are earned by either killing, healing, or dna scans depending on class, but once my lab assistant has hand to hand and axe prof, and the shopping skill, one way is no easier than the other to gain experience. What is the difference between having a cop or a private? A bullet proof vest. What's the point? A private can just go to a cop shop and find one in one day. I just think it would be more interesting if the classes had differences that lasted farther into the skill gathering process. I like the game. It is fun, but variety is the spice of life. The permanant differences don't have to be drastic. Just present. What if soldiers started 3% better at shooting than everyone else and stayed that way throughout, for example? Each class would have a slight advantage for a class specific skill. Cops could have another 3% in hand to hand, consumers 5% more chance to find FAK (or something), doctors could heal another 5 on top of everyone else. Lab assistants can produce revives for 15. Firemen can do 4 damage with axe. Are these more reasonable?
- I don't think those are reasonable at all.
Firstly, soldiers already earn XP faster than anybody else, and get the "must have ASAP" skill of Free Running at a discount price. Your 3% bonus in fact means a starting soldier hits 10% more often, meaning the score kill bonuses that much more often. It s small number, but a big boost. Some other alternative might be OK, but making them better at shooting is BAD; if nothing else, it would make for a popular PK class. (One alternative might be to give them a search bonus inside forts. Its a very small boost, but a very logical one that would encourage them to organize on missions to reclaim the forts.)
Cops with a bonus in HTH seems odd- most people who play cops buy gun skills first. Again, how about a (very slight) search bonus in a PD?
Consumers- I don't really know what do do for them. It nt really logical to make them all good "support" characters, or all harder to kill, or anything, really. (Shrug)
Doctors certainly do NOT need to heal another 5 xp. That would actually HURT starting doctors, because it means for any given set of injured people, they would earn less XP healing them before they were all healed. That assumes they could find any injured people to begin with, with other docs running around healing 10, 15, or 20 HP at a go, there wouldn't be many! What docs really need is FAKs; how about a bonus when searching is hospitals?
The problem with this all really comes in when you consider zombies. Zombies suposedly gain power by killing survivors and making them zombies. If you make character's stronger by class (including a zombie class) you create a strong incentive for people to return to thier starting class, rather than playing as a zombie. The game already has to many Mrh cows, so why build in a mechanic that discourages Dual Nature play? In fact, this is such a major issue, I think I'll put it as a "dead in the water" topic. . . . swiers
16:20, 22 July 2007 (BST)
- I don't think those are reasonable at all.
Dead in the Water
OK, this is now "officially" a frequently suggested / dead in the water topic type. Feel free to edit as relevent; it might be good to ad it to the table of examples under "The List" if (other) examples can be found; they are surely out there. . . . swiers 
01:35, 23 July 2007 (BST)
