New Skill system idea

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Nikodemus
I see you have got most of this what i have said, so for now i won\'t post here. And i\'m happy of this discussion. It wasn\'t somethink like arguing with Zanzibar (forgive me if it will cause a flamewar =P) what is kind of pointless.
I have never considered you as an enemy.  I may only sound annoying in my posts

Talking with me is never pointless as long as you\'re polite and constructive.

[Ethan]

It would be good if you explain better what is wrong in the current system, and why is your system is a solution to correct these lacks. The current system is a beginning so it may be normal that the current implementation is not very subtle.
As I understand your system is \"only\" an automatic and transparent system ie players would be able to play without knowing how the skills are really handle by the game. This is quite realistic and I like it. But I wonders if your system is really a new system and if the current one could not be changed into yours with a few modification.
About the interface, the no number concept is not related to the skills sytem it self so it will be better if people could stick to the aim of this thread.
And you are always saying no levels or ranks or what-word-you-want but skills has to be implemented with a number or something like that : the difference between experience and level is a mathematical function, this is a kind of bijection, so there is not really a \"difference\". I am totally agree that it should have not huge gaps between the levels of the skill but it is also related to the implementation... I used to play p&p rpg where skills were ratio (like 5% , 70%, 120%...), there is not really level but each 1% could represent one. The interface is nother point (see above).

[Rolf Blacksmith]

@ Ethan:

The problem with the current system is that it simply doesn\'t make much sense.

Currently, you could run half a year without gaining any additional stamina. Instead you simply go to a trainer, pay him some credits and you\'re done!

You could fight a thousand enemies, but neither your strength nor your weapon handling would become any better.

It\'s the same with the mental stats:

You can\'t improve just by training, by trial and error. You always have to go to a trainer first. Ther are no autodidacts in Planeshift yet, and that\'s completely unrealistic and can\'t be justified in RP manners.

That\'s the only reason I can think of right now, but it\'s an important one ...

[BaurakSered]

Originally posted by Ethan
It would be good if you explain better what is wrong in the current system, and why is your system is a solution to correct these lacks.

As for what\'s wrong with the current system... the short answer is that there isnt anything esentially \"wrong\" with the system.

On the other hand, it could use improvement for the following reasons. It is not realistic; It is not intuitive; It tends to encourage the players to obsess over numbers and forget that they\'re actually playing a game; it does not imerse the player; it is not well/realistically balanced; it is too finite/limited in many unrealistic ways; race is almost a non-factor in character development; etc

As I understand your system is \"only\" an automatic and transparent system ie players would be able to play without knowing how the skills are really handle by the game. This is quite realistic and I like it.

Im glad you like the idea

But I wonders if your system is really a new system and if the current one could not be changed into yours with a few modification.

This is where I completely disagree. The system I described is so different that it hardly resembles the current system at all. The only similarity I see is that both systems incorporate learned and practiced skill advancements. Outside of that one similarity there have absolutely nothing in common.

I do, however, believe that the current system could evolve into this one. I would not say \"a few small modifications\" as that would be a gross underestimate of the changes that would have to be made.

About the interface, the no number concept is not related to the skills sytem it self so it will be better if people could stick to the aim of this thread.

Wrong.
The \"no numbers\" concept is directly related to the skill system because it defines how the player interacts with the skill system.

And you are always saying no levels or ranks or what-word-you-want but skills has to be implemented with a number or something like that : the difference between experience and level is a mathematical function, this is a kind of bijection, so there is not really a \"difference\".

I acknowledged the fact that all skills, levels, ranks, etc are determined by numbers, and never claimed this as a new idea.

The \"difference\" would be that those numbers would be much more complex and give a natural feel to the game. It would be much less rigid and digital(for lack of a better term) than the current system. The realism would be enhanced by the fact that you would no longer be so dependent on numbers as a player. Your \"stats\" instead of being a list of numbers would only be measured by you abilities.

i.e. \"I can run from the arena to the forest without getting tired\" compared to \"I have 85 stamina points\"

or

\"I need to be a little stronger to carry a Frosty Broadsword and practice my sword skills some more, then I think Ill be able to kill gladiators\" compared to \"I need to have 85 STR so that I can carry a level 44 longsword and if my sword level is 25 or higher, I\'ll be able to be able to kill gladiators\"

Those examples may be a little extreme, but it gets the point across.

I am totally agree that it should have not huge gaps between the levels of the skill but it is also related to the implementation... I used to play p&p rpg where skills were ratio (like 5% , 70%, 120%...), there is not really level but each 1% could represent one. The interface is nother point (see above).

I didnt understand where you were coming from or where you were going with that last part, so i\'ll let you expound on that if you\'d like to.

[Ethan]

Firstly, autodidacts are rare but this is true that they do exist. One good thing with the current skill system is that \"trainer\" are needed and this reflect the fact that autodidacts are very seldom, that most people use \"outter source\" (teachers, books ...) to learn and that the training will be better if you have already some empirical knowledge.

Secondly, the aim of my post was to make you react. As I already said, the current system is a beginning so this one of the reasons of its \"simplicity\", and a lot of the ideas in this threads are \"improvements\".

For me, skill system, ie a part of the game engine, and interface will be always two different things (MVC model) even though they are related ie an interface (HMI) is obvioulsy the link between the human and the machine.
The point is that the thread is not only about a skill system. And about the \"new\", with reading others posts and/or pen & paper rpg you will find that there is no completely new stuff.

But actually I\'m going for only experience and no \"levels\". You would never become suddenly stronger or better, just slowly and slowly each day until you find that you are doing 10 more damage or are creating more \"polished\", \"perfect\", \"fine\", and \"sharp\" weapons!

My previous post was an attemp to answer to theses  assertions. Shortly, there is no real difference between \"experience and levels\" (already closed point), levels don\'t necessary mean  gaps, a explanation of what \"levels\" stand for could be well-done so we would all speak with the same vocabulary-semantic.

PS: My aim is not to flame, but to make the description of your \"new skill system\" better. (I have nothing against your ideas. )

[Neryam]

Here  is a good thread on why the current skill system is bad.

And I\'d like to disagree on your word \"improvements\". Like Baurak said, this is more a total revamp.

Gosh, my main point is the hardest-to understand point is seems :/
In this system, \"steps\", otherwise known as levels or ranks, do NOT exist. Experience alone is used.

The concept of \"1000 exp is lvl 1, 3000 exp is lvl 2\" is how ALL games these ways work. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I plan to change that on Planeshift by completely removing levels and only usend the exp part.

And autodidacts are people who learn things themselves right? Everybody is one. I mean, if you killed 2000 rats, do you not think you would become a LITTLE better? Without doubt, you will learn better, quicker ways of killing em by accident or on an impulse now and then.

And I say again, even in this system, if you do not use trainers at ALL, it will take like 20 times as long as you to reach, say, 10000 exp than someone else who uses trainers now and then. So you can do it, but it\'s not very smart. :rolleyes:

[Ethan]

Maybe It should not have posted because this is going to loop...

Originally posted by Neryam
Gosh, my main point is the hardest-to understand point is seems :/
In this system, \"steps\", otherwise known as levels or ranks, do NOT exist. Experience alone is used.

experience = smaller steps
If there is ranks this is because this is  easier to implement the skills from them. This is also easier to read your competence. You could answer : we will use sentences (but this is in fact only a translation number to String ) or nothing (but this point is hard to implement, if you want that player become really aware of their pogress.

One other reason of ranks have been implemented in computer games is that variablse can not handle any number and so have a min/max values. ( a variable use a specific amount of memory)

The concept of \"1000 exp is lvl 1, 3000 exp is lvl 2\" is how ALL games these ways work. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I plan to change that on Planeshift by completely removing levels and only usend the exp part.

Maybe this is true for computer games but I can\'t be sure and I don\'t know how you can. About pen and paper rpg, the Basic system from Chaosium does not involve levels and there is no \"amount of experience\". A system like this one could be an alternativ sytem, but even this one is not \"new\".

And I say again, even in this system, if you do not use trainers at ALL, it will take like 20 times as long as you to reach, say, 10000 exp than someone else who uses trainers now and then. So you can do it, but it\'s not very smart. :rolleyes:

So training could be seen as the major point and the other, \"improvements\". We could argue about infinitely. At the the beginning of a game, testers should ba ble to get to the limit skills, so the training as to be implemented first and then \"improvements\".

[Neryam]

experience = smaller steps
If there is ranks this is because this is easier to implement the skills from them. This is also easier to read your competence. You could answer : we will use sentences (but this is in fact only a translation number to String ) or nothing (but this point is hard to implement, if you want that player become aware of their pogress.

One other reason of ranks have been implemented in computer games is that variablse can not handle any number and so have a min/max values. ( a variable use a specific amount of memory)

No, experience != smaller steps >:|
Experience is experience. Experience is not steps, its a SLOPE.
And systems who use ranks/levels use variables with experience too, otherwise how would you know what rank/level you have? I just want to take out the level conversion and only use experience.
ARRGH is this so hard to understand?! X( just cause this is the first time something like this has been thought of..

Maybe this is true for computer games but I can\'t be sure and I don\'t know how you can. About pen and paper rpg, the Basic system from Chaosium does not involve levels and there is \"amount of experience\". A system like this one could be an alternativ sytem, but even this one is not \"new\".

And yeah, I wasn\'t referring to paper and board games, I was referring to computer rpgs.


Oh come ON! You thing this is an \"improvement\"?! A totally new skill concept that has never before been conceived is an improvement.
The ONLY thing that is the same as the last one is the concept of practical/theoretical practice and trainers.. and without the trainers it would be a crap system and the practical/theoretical is just a good idea..
Bah who cares what it\'s called X(

Gauging skill:

Eliminating numbers would aribitate your true strength and would be more realistic (You don\'t say \"I have 22 sword level and I do 121 damage\" in real life!) and would also serve to make people care less about \"levels\", therefore lessening PLing. To better gauge your strength you could go to trainers or some other npc and get awards such as \"Blademaster\" or \"Master artistain\" or \"Smith of Yliakum\".

 :rolleyes: