Branching

[Delerak]

Thought I'd post about something that just came to mind.  Branching.  Anyways here's what my idea, in a nuthshell, basically was.  Most people know what branches from what with each class, and if they don't they have documents on it.  Anyways.  I think that it should vary.  Now hear me out.  I think it should vary on race/starting location.  This would then make it a little more different for each character.  Let's say that warriors branch something from parry, well maybe if the character was an elf that is fine, but if it was a dwarf maybe it should branch it from subdue?  And the location branches would come into play for fighting branches.  Such as ranger parry, their is two different ways to fight southlands and northlands one uses a shield or one uses dual wielding, at least we tried to establish that in docs.  So if my character never does what it takes to branch parry he will never branch it, and if he was born in a certain place where they don't use the skill it takes to branch parry he is basically screwed.  Whew, man this was hard to write without revealing what branches from what.  I think I've used the word branch enough for today.  Whaddaya think?

[Eternal]

...over 4 years on Armageddon...

...two characters that actually 'branched' skills...

I always find it amusing, that I next to never actually use coded skills, and I often find myself wondering if I'm twinking if my magicker gets in a good four casts in two ooc hours.  :wink:

[Delerak]

I have never branched with a warrior, but I have branched with about 6 rangers, just goes to show you how much stronger rangers can get then warriors when you are a loner.

[John]

I like the idea. However I think that Southern Dwarven Warriors should be able to learn a skill from a Northern Elven Warrior that they wouldn't be able to branch. Hope that makes sense.

[Eternal]

I think Exodus just likes making things tough for the immortals.   :roll:

That said, I think it's a good idea, but not one that would drastically improve the game, or that would be worth the time necessary to change the skill trees.  I'm all for the differences in race to skills, not because of any physical differences, but because of cultural ones.  Elves might branch flee from steal, dwarves might gain subdue from bash, things like that.  (Pauses to imagine a dwarf "bashing" a half-giant, laughs to himself)

Lord Templar Hard Nose rubs two allanaki coins together.

[Delerak]

Yeah exactly, I think branching has a lot of potential for change.  I think it would be just neato if you branch a skill and don't know where the hell it came from.  Which you can't really do nowadays anyway.  But if you think about it, some people will use one skill because they know what comes from it, and want it early on, which is kind of OOC.  It would really be cool if it depended on weight/height age as well.  A 35 yr old man might not learn how to poison something different from a 15 yr old kid.  Anyways, just throwing some more thoughts out there.

[John]

It would really be cool if it depended on weight/height age as well.

I'm against age being a specific to learn skills. Just for the fact that if I want a newbie warrior at 40 then it's difficult (let's say I've been a merchant and I want a career change). HOWEVER I'm not against it being dependant on height, because some skills will be need you to be height X. Can't think of any, but I'm sure there are some. Weight's a tricky issue because it's impossible to tell the difference between fat and muscle.

Great ideas though.

[John]

Okay, here is my jackpot of crazy ideas. For this entire post, let's all just pretend the Imms can instacode anything they want. :wink:

Make branchings, dependant on more then one skill. That way you can't branch Trip until you have mastered Walk and Push. This would a lot to the game IMO, and cause people to not necessarily know how they're branching skills. It'd be good for magickers, as it's ridiculously easy to know what spells cause you to branch what.

The next idea, is to make it if you branch one skill, you can't branch other skills. An example is if you branch the Ultimate Bludgeon skill , then you can't branch the Ultimate Slashing skill or the Nearly Ultimate Bludgeon skill. You can still become profficient in a slashing weapon, but never a master.

Another idea is if you want to became a jack of all trades (such as good in all the weapon skills) then you can't ever branch Ultimate Bludgeon or anything, you could only branch Nearly Ultimate Bludgeon, but you could also branch the Ultimate Slashing skill.

Hope that makes sense.

[witchman]

But I've been playing for many years (8 or so at least) and mostly magickers at that.  I can't remember which spell branches from what and I don't keep OOC docs on it, either.

I suspect that if we don't OOCly focus on the skills there wouldn't be a problem.

Obviously some skills with branch to a particular new skill - like craft coffee to craft latte or whatever.  You can't make that random without loosing the sense that you need to master coffee first.

Again, I think if we stop thinking OOCly about game stats and codes, you'll loose yourself in the game.

In fact, as I think on it, anyone who thinks that people keep all this data and occ docs on the things behind Arm (player-wise) probably is approacahing the game as badly as those who may indeed keep such docs and worry about such things.
</rant>
:-)

[creeper386]

I think it's just crazy, I've been playing what... think 6 months now have never yet branched anything yet, and besides people telling me through OOC means, which I completely detest but once they say it and I read it all I can say is don't tell me anything else about it, AND through common sense and guessing do I know what branches what.

I don't think It's completely OOC knowledge for the most part, because the branchings of I know of aren't really realistic, sure most the times it helps to know X before learning Y but most the time specially with alot of skills in MUDs, it isn't necessary, you can learn things seperately, and if your character wants to learn something, the only way to get it is through training something else, it's really hard to try and say thats OOC knowledge because in reality in alot of things should be able to learn it without training the skill it branches from.

Like say someone has a latte machine in the MUD... they want to learn how to learn latte but isn't worrying about coffee, in reality they should be able to learn how to make lattes without knowing how to make coffee, but they can't do that because skill_latte_crafting branches from skill_coffee_crafting. Sure, you could probably make a deal in special app or with alot of RP to get the skill early...

Hmm... Well it's just not clear cut to say thats strictly OOC knowledge and you can't use it. Sure it'd be bad to use it all the time but I'm sure that isn't close to the problem with the Player Base as it is. I personally think a different system of skills would be ALOT better, but it'd be alot to change and wouldn't be worth it.

Creeper who in conclusion says, use your best judgement!

[Delerak]

What exactly was your reply about Creeper? You're against it?  I'm saying that branched skills should be a little more advanced then just this comes from that at this time.  It's called fleshing out the skill system a bit more.  I didn't understand anything you said.

[Wind Warrior]

So far I have read alot about ooc focus on skills to branch.  Im my experience, yet I knew how to branch a certain skill, branching skill x and/or y from skill z came naturally with my character's job and role.  My character was a particular class and had a particular job so sometimes branching comes with the territory.

Unless you are playing a political character, or are just not using your skills, branching is imminent.  Especially with crafers, warrior, and rangers.

I do agree though that branched and/or starting skills can/should vary depending on race and/or location.  It bothers me, in a sense, that I can see a particular character from the other end of the known world, with completely different lifestyle and routine as mine, with exactly the same skills.

Dunno man, dunno.

[Tedronai]

Why is it easier for a loner ranger to branch then say, a warrior in the Byn?

Is it true that the rangers get significant bonuses against animals? Enough to actually solo? Because from my scant experience as a actively fighting warrior a couple alts ago, even with great stats that let me defeat 90 percent of my sparring partners consistently, I got rocked by any NPC mob on my own.

[krelin]

I'm not convinced that its truly easier for a loner ranger to branch than a Byn warrior.  It may be easier for a loner ranger to twink out than a Byn warrior.

No.  A well-trained warrior will be much more easily able to handle themselves against an animal opponent...  Both classes are capable of soloing in the wilds if they're played smartly, but warriors are almost universally (comparing two players of equivalent play-times) a step ahead of rangers in battle (better at parrying, better at weapon skills, plus their "cheating" techniques, bash, subdue, kick, etc.)  If you're able to beat, say, a Byn sergeant, you should be able to beat most (say 70% or better) of the easily encountered mobs solo (one on one), and likely in worse odds (two or three on one), BUT some mobs are just really badass.

[creeper386]

It makes since that different places and people would develop skills differently or totally different skills then someone else.

But like I trying to say and it's a tricky subject so anything I say about it isn't going to be clear cut, is the branching thing is hard to say what is OOC knowledge and you can use it to what is alright to use. When it comes down to most skills that alot of people could teach(everything from fighting to cooking basically, most the skills except magicking things and it'd be harder to find assassin teachers and stuff even in a place like Zalanthas but I'm sure you could still get them) it shouldn't really be so difficult to learn them as you have to max this skill or that. More often then not it leads to people who need skill Y, but since it branches from skill X they'll end up training that even if it's not IC because it's IC for them to know skill Y. Now people say you can just speak with an Imm... But I beleive I read Sanvean said the Imms don't like to or don't do things like switching skills, so you'd have to go through an Application for it even though it's nothing special that your character should learn skill Y. Maybe you could switch them but it could very well end up with your character needing skill X further down tthe road, either to use it or it's needed to branch something else.

Basically, I'm saying the branching system although not bad, is really flawed in the fact that it isn't always a step by step situation to learn things. In fact things rarely ABSOLUTELY need you to learn something else before you can learn it, maybe it has some common knowledge that exists with another skill but you don't need to know everything.

I'm also saying that using knowledge of what branching from what, even if the Imms say it's bad, can't be miscontrued as COMPLETELY OOC knowledge. I'm sorry, but people should know ICally how to learn those skills and the OOC answer of you can't learn that untill your max out a similar or somehow related skill, in no way fits IC. If a character has the physically ability to learn something(By this I'm going by class, I tend to think of classes as a skill set they have a knack and physical ability for) they should be able to learn it seperately from other people.

Things would also probably be improved by adding on to the skills system allowing the branching way, as well as more IC ways to get skills, rather by learning them or what, sur e like everything things can be abused, and probably would be made harder then branching which I don't think is right but how things end up being, but things right now are kind of odd, specially with people saying if you use knowledge of what branches from what your using OOC knowledge in the game. Well I'm sorry but if it comes to it, right now thats the only thing to do that allows your character have any say over what he learns is be maxing out another skill.


Creeper who after thinking this through really doesn't like the branching system as a stand alone by itself.

[Delerak]

The branching system works fine.  I just started this thread to see who else feels it should be more advanced.  I mean this MUD is more advanced then any other MUD out there, I don't care what anyone tells you.  It truly is.  You won't find it's equal.  So I think things like skills should become more advanced.  Even though they already are advanced when you are talking about a normal mud.  Arm isn't a normal mud though.

[creeper386]

The branching system works fine. I just started this thread to see who else feels it should be more advanced. I mean this MUD is more advanced then any other MUD out there, I don't care what anyone tells you. It truly is. You won't find it's equal. So I think things like skills should become more advanced. Even though they already are advanced when you are talking about a normal mud. Arm isn't a normal mud though.

First, it's my opinion, that little bit about branching system just fine comes across like your an expert and your opinion means alot more, sure it won't change, but my opinion was ALSO about making it more advanced, as I agreed that certain combinations shouldn't always have the same skills as certain other combinations.

I know the MUD is damn good, and pretty advanced, against MY opinion, such as it was, was ALSO about improving things like I said earlier. I say improving because I think I mentioned ADDing onto the branching system, because for the most part, it's really limited even if your idea of advancing it by making different combinations branch differently, it's still the basic branching system, which is a basic system.

[edit]Also, I want to add in that just because someone suggests a code change or addition doesn't mean the current code is bad, just means it can be made better, like every thing else. I just HATE this type of thing when alot of people get bitchy thinking you are putting down their hard work or something.(Past troubles with Imms blocking me from boards and such because they said my suggestions made the MUD look bad)[/edit]

Creeper

[Anonymous]

Thought I'd post about something that just came to mind.  Branching.  Anyways here's what my idea, in a nuthshell, basically was.  Most people know what branches from what with each class, and if they don't they have documents on it.  Anyways.  I think that it should vary.  Now hear me out.  I think it should vary on race/starting location.  This would then make it a little more different for each character.  Let's say that warriors branch something from parry, well maybe if the character was an elf that is fine, but if it was a dwarf maybe it should branch it from subdue?  And the location branches would come into play for fighting branches.  Such as ranger parry, their is two different ways to fight southlands and northlands one uses a shield or one uses dual wielding, at least we tried to establish that in docs.  So if my character never does what it takes to branch parry he will never branch it, and if he was born in a certain place where they don't use the skill it takes to branch parry he is basically screwed.  Whew, man this was hard to write without revealing what branches from what.  I think I've used the word branch enough for today.  Whaddaya think?

i think it would be to hard for the imms and to confusing and and.....

[witchman]

I was just thinking - how about when you are ready to branch instead of getting a new skill you get a new "slot" and then you have to find a teacher to teach you a new skill, restricted by class/race/whatever.

So a warrior perfects an initial skill and then has the option to learn any of several skills that would be the next "level" up, but couldn't learn more advanced skills nor could he learn non-class/non-race skills.

This could go further, say the warrior perfects yet another skill, now he has two empty "slots" perhaps he could learn some thief specific skills at twice the cost of a thief character.

[Rindan]

I am very much not a fan of the idea of any sort of 'leveling up'.  I think one thing that makes Armageddon great is that you almost always feel like character progression is a very smooth thing.  There is never a need to go do something to get something else.  When you get better at something, it happens over the course of a long time and is generally not noticable until you realize that you are kicking the crap out of newer recruits, or that you can steal a sword from a belt without much effort.  Forcing people to run around looking for teachers feels way to much like a level to me.  I prefer things to be left as they are.  If your warrior wants a thief skill, then he should be taught ICly over the course of a time, and then get the staff to add the skill.  The last thing I want is to see a guy in a Byn uniform slipping off into the Byn after he gets a free slot so that he can get someone to teach him backstab.

[witchman]

In the interest of making the game have a realistic feel, don't you think we should be taught new skills?  Perhaps it's more natural to suddenly learn how to poison after doing something completely different for a long time?

[Delerak]

Yeah, I think it's a good idea.  Anything that fleshes out the skill system is a-okay with me.

[Rindan]

I think it is more to show that you would have been subtly influenced to learn something new.  If you are a picking locks, then eventually it makes sense that you also begin to understand how to make lock picks.  If your ranger fights often, it makes sense that eventually he learns how to parry a blow as well as any warrior.

Whatever the case, the thought of suddenly hitting a certain 'level' where you have to run off and 'train' in something to get it is repugnant in my opinion, and certainly not a more realistic option compared to branching.  Branching has a natural flow to it.  People don't all of a sudden decide to run off into the 'rinth to learn backstab.  If it were to as you suggest, I could be sitting there with my merchant stone crafter and all of a sudden have the option to run off and pick up back stabbing.

The biggest reason why I really dislike the idea of getting 'slots' that you can go fill is simply because it feels too much like leveling up.  A 'leveling up' feel is something that Armageddon does an excellent job avoiding.  I happily shrug off slightly unrealistic quality to some of the branches in exchange for the fluid character growth and the lack of leveling up.

[Delerak]

I think if it was advanced enough it could work.  AD&D darksun is just as fun as Armageddon, and you can cross-class on it.

[crymerci]

My objection to this would be that requiring someone to learn from another would cause characters to be limited. For example:

-The assassin that goes about in the guise of a merchant. If she has to let someone in on the fact that she's interested in poison, there goes her disguise.
-The 50-day warrior, who can't find anyone who knows more than he does to teach him, so can't learn anything new. Skills could theoretically die out completely if everyone who knew them died before passing them along.
-The hermit loner, for whom it would be out of character to go to anyone for anything, much less asking for a lesson in something.

I'm sure there are many more examples, but you get the idea: code restricting roleplay possibilities.