Player training thought out a bit more.

[hitancrias]

Player training has already been debated here, here and here. But I think my idea is different enough to start a new thread rather then reviving those who have been dead for long. I used some parts of them though.

Player training was often suggested as a way to stimulate the ?player driven economy?, but I don?t think it works that way. There are always enough people who are kind enough to offer training for free, especially to friends and guild mates. That makes player training pointless, as new players can rank way to fast that way, and people who joined a guild with skilled trainers who are willing to train them all they need, have a huge advantage over the ones who did not.

My idea:
Since players can?t be forced to ask money in return of their help. Training should cost time instead, for both parties. I?ll explain it with the mining skill as an example

• There is a character who wants to learn how to mine. He already has bought the training from Harnquist and has a rockpick.
• He agrees with someone with a high rank in mining, a friend or a paid trainer, that the trainer shall help him.
• The trainer then offers to teach him how to mine with a command. (Not the other way around to prevent newbs from abusing the command by using it OOC without a RP introduction.)
• If the other (the apprentice) accepts they form a training group.
• They have to go to the right spot and dig together.
  
• The trainer won?t have as much chance to find something as he normally has. The idea behind this is that he has to help the other and give him advice and therefore slows down himself a bit.
• The apprentice has more chance to find something than he normally would have. Therefore he will find more ores and therefore raise his skill faster. The idea behind this is that the apprentice can see how the teacher is doing the job, and gets some advise about how to wield the pick, where to dig and so on.
• The trainer will also slowly train his teaching skill. A higher rank in teaching means the bonuses for the apprentice should increase and in the teacher might even be able to teach more then one apprentice at the same time. (schools?!)
• Of course the difference in skill level in mining should also be taken into account when determining the bonuses for the apprentice and the penalties for the trainer.
• If either the apprentice or the trainer leaves the group, everything returns to normal.

I think this is better then fixed trainers / apprentices relations for a longer period of time, because it can be annoying to be dependant of one single trainer and it?s not realistic that only one person can give you advice. Of course you can roleplay a ?fixed? master / apprentice relationship, but you shouldn?t be forced to do so.

This way, player training can work for the practical knowledge.
In the end we might want to change the theoretical NPC training as well. But then the total amount of theoretical knowledge shouldn?t be a requirement to start with the practical knowledge. You simply need to fill a theoretical bar, as well as a practical bar to get another rank. The teacher can give a bit of theoretical knowledge for example every five minutes, or after the apprentice has found three ores or so.

Exactly the same can be done for the fighting skills, the magical skills and the crafting skillsby fighting together, crafting together and casting spells together. (the exact rules should be somewhat different, but the idea stays the same)

Last remark: I don?t see the use of PPs. What is the reason they exist anyway? Getting progression points as well as practical experience is simply redundant. Tria and time should be the limiting factors that keep you from leveling too fast, not PPs?

Please give some feedback. If people are positive about this idea I?ll post a link to this thread in the wish-list in the bugtracker.
Thank you.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by hitancrias
Player training was often suggested as a way to stimulate the ?player driven economy?, but I don?t think it works that way. There are always enough people who are kind enough to offer training for free, especially to friends and guild mates. That makes player training pointless, as new players can rank way to fast that way, and people who joined a guild with skilled trainers who are willing to train them all they need, have a huge advantage over the ones who did not.

Not necessarily.  It could be made so that you can\'t train past half of your level.  So if I have level 50 in light armour, then I can\'t train someone past level 25.

Further, there could be a rule that you can only level up once per hour (or something).  Maybe levelling up once every 12 hours even.  That would mean that a player would have to play every day for three months before he started to see levels max out.

[Rerogo]

Originally posted by zanzibar
Further, there could be a rule that you can only level up once per hour (or something).  Maybe levelling up once every 12 hours even.  That would mean that a player would have to play every day for three months before he started to see levels max out.

That is far too unrealistic. I challenge you to try to come up with a good RP explanation for that.

[hitancrias]

Originally posted by zanzibar

Originally posted by hitancrias
Player training was often suggested as a way to stimulate the ?player driven economy?, but I don?t think it works that way. There are always enough people who are kind enough to offer training for free, especially to friends and guild mates. That makes player training pointless, as new players can rank way to fast that way, and people who joined a guild with skilled trainers who are willing to train them all they need, have a huge advantage over the ones who did not.

Not necessarily.  It could be made so that you can\'t train past half of your level.  So if I have level 50 in light armour, then I can\'t train someone past level 25.

Further, there could be a rule that you can only level up once per hour (or something).  Maybe levelling up once every 12 hours even.  That would mean that a player would have to play every day for three months before he started to see levels max out.

I think 25 ranks is way to much to get as a free present. Even 5 ranks is, in my oppinion. Personly I don\'t like limitations expresssed in real life hours or even PS time, for roleplay reasons, but also because I simply don\'t like to deal with that kind of limitations in a computer game as a player.

[Cha0s]

Ok, how about a player can only rank up 5 times per Ylian day in all skills, total. All things considered, that\'s a lot of learning for one day...

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Rerogo

Originally posted by zanzibar
Further, there could be a rule that you can only level up once per hour (or something).  Maybe levelling up once every 12 hours even.  That would mean that a player would have to play every day for three months before he started to see levels max out.

That is far too unrealistic. I challenge you to try to come up with a good RP explanation for that.

It is entirely realistic and entirely explanable within RP.

Tell me, by working really really really really really really really hard in a single day, can you get to the skill level of someone who\'s been doing something for two years?  No.  You peak out.  You become exausted physically and mentally.  You can only progress so far per session and per day.

It you have a well worded rebuttle which backs up your statement, I\'d love to hear it.  I\'m speaking from the experience of being on a number of sports teams and from playing a variety of musical instruments, so while I\'m pretty sure of my opinion I will hear yours with open ears provided that you back it up.


If you have a secret which allows you to practice piano all day without stopping, a secret which allows you to progress without limit every day, you should write a book on it.  You\'ll make millions.

[Jakob]

I have to say that I agree with Zanzibar.  Although your idea is a good start that is all that it is.  That is also why we have forums, to refine ideas from good, or even horribly pathetic starts.  Going along with your plan, the amount a student can learn in a set period of time should be based not on time and tria but on intelligence and or strength and physical and or mental stamina(mental should always be a requirement regardless of what your learning) as well as current skill.  Let\'s face it, if you already know let\'s say all the states and capitals in the United States, and you are trying to teach them to someone for a test, although you might be very skilled the person you\'re trying to teach may not be.  Now let\'s say that this same person already knows half of the states and capitals.  Your job just got a whole lot easier.  I see this all the time in my martial arts class.  It\'s hard to learn the basics, but once you\'ve learned front kick, jump front kick comes a little easier, and once you\'ve learned that jumping front kick comes a little easier, and diagonal kick and combinations involving these techniques.  Your ideas are a good basic foundation I think, but they need to be reworked.  A foundation for a barn can be used to build a house.  Now, before I take up any more space, or say anthing weirder, I\'m going to proof-read this and stop typing...