theworldofdreams.com

some time back, drocket himself made a suggestion of having summoned daemons able to gain exp and ultimately gaining levels which would make it more powerful. i suggest that instead of daemons gaining exp, the golems should be able to gain exp and if it dies (breaks) it loses some xp.

Seems to me that the more one traffics with daemons, undead, etc, the higher the likelihood of 2 things...


(1) the summoned things should be more powerful - maybe after your 100th daemon summons, you start getting ice fiends or other meanies

(2) the summoned things should start to have a chance of going berserk and attacking the caster - after you start getting tougher daemons, there's a cumulative 2% chance per summons that it'll attack you (2nd time 4%, 3rd time 6%, etc.). Once it attacks you, the chance of wackoness goes back down to 2%.

Dealing with extraplanar beasties is a risky business after all. Maybe rather than going berserk, the summons just fails or maybe you turn into the daemon rather than summoning up a new one.

Innocent, random ramblings. Please forgive any nutty content.

Kobayashi wrote:some time back, drocket himself made a suggestion of having summoned daemons able to gain exp and ultimately gaining levels which would make it more powerful. i suggest that instead of daemons gaining exp, the golems should be able to gain exp and if it dies (breaks) it loses some xp.

You by chance know where he said this, so we can read his exact thoughts on it before making commentary?

http://www.theworldofdreams.com/phpBB2/ ... c&start=15

I was wrong about the daemon specifically.
At the bottom, you could see how drocket talks about building up an elemental.

Golems: probably eventually, but this would have to go under the list of other things I've said, specifically that dragon raising will happen first, then be extended to other creatures.

specifically that dragon raising will happen first

*drools*

given golems by nature have no intelligence how would they get "smarter" through combat?

Cathavene wrote:

specifically that dragon raising will happen first

*drools*

Hehe Cat, I've been drooling so much, had to get a bucket.

*really loves this idea*

*the dragon raising one*

*really*

~Tristan Gryphon~

Ehran wrote:given golems by nature have no intelligence how would they get "smarter" through combat?

Who said golems would get "smarter"?

Well, actually, if you think about it, experience is a function of intelligence, pretty much by definition. You fight things a bunch, learn from your successes and failures, and by doing so, become a better fighter.

According to Louis P. Pojman [Philosophy: The Pursuit of Wisdom, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning, 2004), pp. 136-137], there are three types of general knowledge:

1. Knowledge by Acquaintance. "A person S knows something or someone x (where x is the direct object of the sentence)." We have personal and direct experience with objects or people in this world. Acquaintance knowledge, therefore, involves knowing people, knowing the town we are from, the kind of car we drive, what it's like to fly in an airplane, etc. Whatever we can see, smell, taste, hear, or feel with our senses falls under this category (i.e. perceptual knowledge). "Animals and children, who do not think in propositions, have this kind of knowledge."

2. Competence Knowledge (sometimes called skill knowledge). "A person S knows how to D (where D stands for an infinitive)." This is your basic know how. You know how to drive a car, use a computer, speak english, play the piano, battle an Ancient and survive (:D) etc. "Competence knowledge involves an ability to perform a skill and may be done consciously or unconsciouly."

3. Propositional Knowledge (or descriptive knowledge). "A person S knows that p (where p is some statement or proposition). Propositions have truth value; that is, they are true or false." Whenever we make a proposition or affirmation about something we claim that p is true or false. An example of propositional knowledge would be "I know that a computer game like UO has the ability to provide entertainment." Another example is "I know that the capital of the US is Washington D.C." Many philosophers believe that only "reflective beings" such as human beings are able to have this kind of knowledge. "An interesting question is whether all propositional knowledge is based on acquaintance knowledge." For instance, saying that I know that the pen I'm holding is blue, implies that I have experienced what it is like to see the blue color and see/touch a pen. "Those who deny such dependence argue that the structures of our mind are such that we can have knowledge (or justified beliefs) of some universal propositions that are not dependent on experience." Examples of those propositions are "Every event has a cause";"All events take place in time"; and "A contradiction cannot be true."

Just thought you'd like to know (pardon the pun ).

Kobayashi wrote:

Ehran wrote:given golems by nature have no intelligence how would they get "smarter" through combat?

Who said golems would get "smarter"?

you did actually in your first post. in order to profit from "experience" one must have some level of intelligence. the alternative is that your car gets "better" the more you drive it for instance rather than wearing down somewhat.

Oh ok, I didn't realize you were bringing reality into an unreal world.

I find myself of the opinion that Kobayashi does have a point. However, I would encourage that people do not raise the issue of "reality" as it is suitable for an argument. Certainly everyone has a different way of interpreting it, especially when applied to different issues. The real issue of a world is not so much 'reality' as such, but rather how believable Britannia is, as Britannia.

That said;

Constructs, which are 'created' in a sense, as an object willing to perform a task, do not 'improve' on the basis that the more you use them, the better they get. Computers do not do this, cars do not do this. (These examples are modernised to provide clarity, not justification.) The "there are no cars in Britannia" argument is invalid here.

Indeed, while one might come to understand just how far the computer (example) can be pushed, it certainly does not 'improve'.

Thus, using the same hypothetical example (of the "computer"), we can see that golems do not need to "improve", but rather, are required to "upgrade". My suggestion is that golems, through the use of expensive materials and crafting skills, can be improved. I'm not interested in specifically how or what the niecities` of such improvement would be, but I can certainly say I disagree with constructs improving with 'experience'. Dragons? Yes. Constructs? No.

Ideally, the concepts would be:

1. Dragons grow in experience, through adventuring
2. Constructs are required to be 'crafted' to improve
3. Summoned Creatures improve as the skill (Magery) does

In this way, not only do most creatures people use for battle improve, but they improve in a variety of ways that are believeable and fun.

If the aim is to provide different elements into the game world, then surely we, as a community, do not need 'experience-growing' creatures for every class and flavour type, simply on the basis that "well, if Dragons can grow in experience, so should Daemons."

I find myself in disagreement with summoned creatures improving with their use, because from a role-playing perspective, the summoning isn't exactly accurate. When summoning a "daemon", you aren't immediately going to get the King Daemon, and this is referenced by the various names Daemons come up with, rather than the same one all the time. In other words, the call goes out, and any Daemon can answer.

Because this is a video game, all daemons have the same statistics (as far as I know), and thus there is really no issue. I question also, the virtue of bringing daemons into the mortal world, and making them more powerful - to defeat evil. Isn't that some sort of ironic cycle? Maybe only I think so.

My final suggestion is that tamable animals be able to be trained to become powerful - and certainly to a limit -, because I would dearly love to have a fine Britannian Warhorse, as well as two hunting hounds, that didn't almost die when hunting Orcs. Especially when considering that *Dragons*, of all creatures, are going to gain a power raise, I find myself disheartened, as I feel it is going to breed a generation of "I'm a Tamer and I'm bored" gamers, who ask for the monsters to be improved, as the cycle goes on.

Well, at least when it happens I can say "I told you so!". That's about as evil as I can get. Maybe.

- Marius the Flamboyantly Evil
Head of the "Evil Pride" Mardi Gras

Kobayashi wrote:Oh ok, I didn't realize you were bringing reality into an unreal world.

if you ever play a game (pnp) called gurps there is a character disadvantage for being very very literal. i seem to have it in spades in real life.