Talk:Gargamel: Guilds - Revision history

Gargamel at 15:46, 11 November 2008

2008-11-11T15:46:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 11 November 2008
Line 39:		Line 39:

	--[[User:Brazil\|Brazil]] 14:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)		--[[User:Brazil\|Brazil]] 14:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)


			== random thoughts... ==

			Maybe in addition to (instead of?) Knight, have warrior branch into 3 possible subclasses ... each essentially with a weapon mastery (slash, blunt, pierce). Or maybe two weapons (slash/blunt - since wars seldom use pierce), and a more support role (buffs, etc).

			--[[User:Gargamel\|Gargamel]] 15:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Brazil at 18:11, 17 October 2008

2008-10-17T18:11:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:11, 17 October 2008
Line 32:		Line 32:

	--[[User:Gargamel\|Gargamel]]		--[[User:Gargamel\|Gargamel]]


			Yeah, we can be lax on the requirements like that.

			I think we discussed if you remorted out of that primary class you'd lose your sub-class. Did you have any thoughts about how Dark Knight fits in with these? It's obviously not a remort one, and has no real restrictions aside from stats. I'm not sure how a Cleric+DarkKnight+Monk would work out though :P

			--[[User:Brazil\|Brazil]] 14:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Gargamel: New section: requirements/bonuses/penalties

2008-10-17T15:47:34Z

New section: requirements/bonuses/penalties

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 17 October 2008
Line 24:		Line 24:

	i guess we could talk about guild requirements and latent bonuses/penalties at some point in the future also (maybe they dont need to have bonuses/penalties)		i guess we could talk about guild requirements and latent bonuses/penalties at some point in the future also (maybe they dont need to have bonuses/penalties)

			--[[User:Gargamel\|Gargamel]]

			== requirements/bonuses/penalties ==

			For the specific Class --> Subclass guilds, would it be unfeasible to not have any requirements (besides 1 remort) to join the guild. Additionally, there would be no penalty/bonus per level or anything like that. I'm thinking that these would enhance our current classes, and if we end up coming up with multiple guilds per class (with the limitation being you could only join 1) - the requirements/penalties/bonuses might get confusing...

	--[[User:Gargamel\|Gargamel]]		--[[User:Gargamel\|Gargamel]]

Gargamel at 00:18, 2 October 2008

2008-10-02T00:18:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:18, 2 October 2008
Line 16:		Line 16:

	hmmm... i see what you're saying. after i went back in and re-read the skill/spell idea, i had envisioned it the way you mentioned, but i wrote it down differently...		hmmm... i see what you're saying. after i went back in and re-read the skill/spell idea, i had envisioned it the way you mentioned, but i wrote it down differently...

			although, i can't imagine that a player would not practice one versus another of the CM skills. maybe have it limited like the sorc augmentation spells? would that work? either that or have it be 10% for 350+, an additional 10% for 500+ and then an even further additional 10% at 800+

			each level of the spell, would add a layer, so at CM1 you only get the 10% for 350+; but at CM2, when it's cast you get 10% for 350+ and 10% for 500+, that way a player wouldn't have to cast it 3 times to get the full effect at CM3, make sense?

	so you don't see any problems for me expanding each one of these?		so you don't see any problems for me expanding each one of these?

Gargamel: New section: re: bz comments

2008-10-02T00:15:36Z

New section: re: bz comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:15, 2 October 2008
Line 12:		Line 12:

	--[[User:Brazil\|Brazil]] 13:16, 1 October 2008 (EDT)		--[[User:Brazil\|Brazil]] 13:16, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

			== re: bz comments ==

			hmmm... i see what you're saying. after i went back in and re-read the skill/spell idea, i had envisioned it the way you mentioned, but i wrote it down differently...

			so you don't see any problems for me expanding each one of these?

			i guess we could talk about guild requirements and latent bonuses/penalties at some point in the future also (maybe they dont need to have bonuses/penalties)

			--[[User:Gargamel\|Gargamel]]

Brazil: New page: I like the direction you're going with this! First comment, for things like the Crusaders Might skills, I would think to implement it more like stackable, instead of ranged. * For exampl...

2008-10-01T17:16:30Z

New page: I like the direction you're going with this! First comment, for things like the Crusaders Might skills, I would think to implement it more like stackable, instead of ranged. * For exampl...

New page

I like the direction you're going with this!

First comment, for things like the Crusaders Might skills, I would think to implement it more like stackable, instead of ranged.

* For example. If you have CM#1 only, you get the 10% bonus when your align is 350-1000.
* When you gain CM#2, you get 10% bonus from 350-500, and the 20% from 500-1000
* When you gain CM#3, you get 10% from 350-550, 20% from 550-800, 30% from 800-1000

Then if you only practice #2 and not #1, you don't get the 10% from 350-500.

What do you think?

--[[User:Brazil|Brazil]] 13:16, 1 October 2008 (EDT)