Skills and Potential

[jcljules]

Something about this game has been bothering me for a while now, and its related to the skills code. When you first start out with a character in Zalanthas, its extremely difficult to get good at basic skills. If you're twinking and taking shortcuts, it takes weeks of work. If you're doing it right, it takes months. This is all fine by me--Armageddon is meant to be a harsh world and I think it makes a lot of sense for players to have to devote a lot of energy to develop their skills realistically. There is, however, something I don't like. Once PCs have put a certain amount of effort into their characters... be it 30 or 40 days played or something... they become indestructible. If you're a maxxed warrior, nobody can or will ever challenge you and face you down. You can kill a duskhorn in one hit, you can drop most PCs to 1/2 of their health with a single blow. If you're a maxxed merchant, you can make -everything- that there is to create in the entire world. You can build wagons, swords, whatever. If you're a maxxed pickpocket, you can slip the ring off of a noble's finger. These PCs become so powerful that its futile to challenge them, ever. Which is the reason I prefer social roles that are not skill-based to combat-based roles. In my opinion, there is a better way.

I think that the abilities of a PC should be based a whole lot more on their potential, as determined by their randomly rolled abilities, than the amount of time the player has spent practicing skills. In my ideal world, this is how it would work--imagine that skills are based on a range of 1 to 100. Everyone would start at zero, and it would take a long time to get competent at your skills, as it does now. Maybe after getting to twenty days played or whatever it happened to be, you'd reach your normal potential at a skill, determined by your ability scores. It would still be possible to progress past this point, but it would be incredibly difficult--even more so than it already is.

This would allow for a whole lot more conflict within the game. If you have a long-lived assassin who has been around for real life years, you should no longer feel entirely safe. Yeah--you're one of the best---but it should definitely be possible for a relatively new assassin, who had been around for a few months and had amazing abilities, to best you. Long-lived pickpockets should be nervous when they start hearing about another stickyfingers on the street who is nicking things from passing nobles. They should not be thinking OOCly, as many do now, "This PC has 40 days played! There is no way that newbie is better than me!"

Example)
Amos the Byn trooper has a potential of 70 in slashing weapons. He plays for six months, and reaches that potential. He plays for another year, and reaches 75.
Malik the Byn runner is a sword prodigy. He has a potential of 80. After playing for six months and training roughly as much as Amos did, he reaches level 80. He is better than Amos, and can defeat him, barring any trickery.

As opposed to how it works now:

Example)
Amos the Byn trooper plays for 4RL years and survives. He p0wns everyone. No-one can ever challenge him, ever. He can only die through storage, in an IMM-supported plot, or by being killed by a magicker. He carries cures with him everywhere he goes

Now I know what the main complaint about this is going to be. That it will just lead to people rerolling like mad. Well I have a proposed solution to that--I don't want people to be able to see their ability scores. I think you should be able to choose your priorities, as you do now, but I've never really understood why rerolling is allowed or why you can see your abilities but not your skills.

Just my two 'sids. Feel free to attack and flame viciously--I can take it and I want to hear your opinions.

Edit: I think this should be different for merchants, cause you can't become a mastercrafter without mastering your skill and that's something that every player should have an opportunity to try.

[Mudder]

Nope, I do not want to see that happen.

[Riev]

So your suggestion, then, is a guild-less system? That entire post, for a guild-less system?


Its been asked before, I believe, and shot down quite well. Being that while mundanes -can- be almost unstoppable, it takes quite a long time of twinkery to get to that point, and everyone feels the flame of a fireball. If a PC has trained for 10 years of his life to do something that you have never had an inkling of thought, they should be ridiculous. That is the game.

Agreeing with Mudder.

[mansa]

Something about this game has been bothering me for a while now, and its related to the skills code. When you first start out with a character in Zalanthas, its extremely difficult to get good at basic skills. If you're twinking and taking shortcuts, it takes weeks of work. If you're doing it right, it takes months. This is all fine by me--Armageddon is meant to be a harsh world and I think it makes a lot of sense for players to have to devote a lot of energy to develop their skills realistically. There is, however, something I don't like. Once PCs have put a certain amount of effort into their characters... be it 30 or 40 days played or something... they become indestructible. If you're a maxxed warrior, nobody can or will ever challenge you and face you down. You can kill a duskhorn in one hit, you can drop most PCs to 1/2 of their health with a single blow. If you're a maxxed merchant, you can make -everything- that there is to create in the entire world. You can build wagons, swords, whatever. If you're a maxxed pickpocket, you can slip the ring off of a noble's finger. These PCs become so powerful that its futile to challenge them, ever. Which is the reason I prefer social roles that are not skill-based to combat-based roles. In my opinion, there is a better way.

I think that the abilities of a PC should be based a whole lot more on their potential, as determined by their randomly rolled abilities, than the amount of time the player has spent practicing skills. In my ideal world, this is how it would work--imagine that skills are based on a range of 1 to 100. Everyone would start at zero, and it would take a long time to get competent at your skills, as it does now. Maybe after getting to twenty days played or whatever it happened to be, you'd reach your normal potential at a skill, determined by your ability scores. It would still be possible to progress past this point, but it would be incredibly difficult--even more so than it already is.

This would allow for a whole lot more conflict within the game. If you have a long-lived assassin who has been around for real life years, you should no longer feel entirely safe. Yeah--you're one of the best---but it should definitely be possible for a relatively new assassin, who had been around for a few months and had amazing abilities, to best you. Long-lived pickpockets should be nervous when they start hearing about another stickyfingers on the street who is nicking things from passing nobles. They should not be thinking OOCly, as many do now, "This PC has 40 days played! There is no way that newbie is better than me!"

The thing about Armageddon, is that there is not a moment when you are "entirely safe".


If your skill gains are based on failure, as you get better and better, it gets harder and harder to fail.  Thus, if it took you 6 weeks to get to 70 skill percentage, it's going to take you longer and longer to FAIL to get to 75 skill percentage, simply because you are that good.  I think a good example is Sujaal, who was a warrior for almost 2 real life years, who from what I've heard from gossip and rumors, wasn't a maxxed out warrior.


I've seen great warriors die to pickpockets.  I've seen assassins lose to a merchant and his group of guards.  In this game, it's nearly impossible to be "untouchable".


I think you just need to realize that there is always someone better than you, and that you can't ever let your guard down.  I don't think the game has the problem that you are mentioning.

[Cutthroat]

A well-trained guild_anything is never 100% safe. A poorly skilled person can still get lucky, and a highly-skilled person can still be unlucky.

Old ways are best, in this case.

[jcljules]

So your suggestion, then, is a guild-less system? That entire post, for a guild-less system?


Its been asked before, I believe, and shot down quite well. Being that while mundanes -can- be almost unstoppable, it takes quite a long time of twinkery to get to that point, and everyone feels the flame of a fireball. If a PC has trained for 10 years of his life to do something that you have never had an inkling of thought, they should be ridiculous. That is the game.

Agreeing with Mudder.

I'm not proposing a guildless system in this post. Just a different way for your skills to develop. Where in the post do I say anything about a guildless system? I like that the way it is.

[Riev]

I'm not proposing a guildless system in this post. Just a different way for your skills to develop. Where in the post do I say anything about a guildless system? I like that the way it is.

The general tone of your post, is that -everyone- has a "potential" to do something. You never said that Amos and Malik were both guild_warrior, and they is why their potential was so high. Your proposal was interesting, but stats themselves already play a huge role when stats are no longer the issue. The guy that can hit just a little harder, or take just one more hit.

I really don't see the problem you mention happening in game though. If I'm a sneak, and I hear about a new sneak on the street, I get cautious. When I'm a warrior there is -always- someone that can beat me. As a merchant, even if I am a master merchant, there is someone that perhaps knows how to emote creating something better than I can. And as Mansa said, nobody is ever truly 100% safe. If someone really wants you dead, you're dead. Plain and simple.

[jcljules]

Well that's not exactly what I meant. I was saying that people should get the same skills that they do now, based on guilds, but that their competence at those skills should be more based on stats then amount of time practicing those skills. Yes, I was assuming that Amos and Malik were both guild_warrior.

Perhaps the stats do play a bigger role already than I think, and the system already does work like this. But I've honestly never seen or heard of a codedly powerful, long-lived PC being killed by another PC. Or even surpassed, really, while they are alive.

[Riev]

I can think of one instance, which probably isn't far enough back to talk about, where a PC warrior got supra powerful and was causing grief, and a couple PC characters took him down. No, they were not warriors themselves, but other guilds. That is Zalanthas, however. As powerful an assassin as you are, if you're sitting in a bar somewhere and you aren't hiding inside a sooper secret chest, you're targettable. Benders, magickers, poisons, all these things can be quite powerful if used correctly.


But yes, JC, there are a lot of combat-oriented PCs that essentially become "Don't mess with him" due to their coded skills. That can be quite disparaging, but if that PC ever pisses off the wrong people, he's gone. And the ensuing RP to get him into an indefensible spot, and trying to deal with city law (if applicable) adds a lot to the story.

As far as I know, stats -do- play a nice role in the end of a mundanes career. The different may be minute, but it is no less existent. If you're a maxed burglar, but your agility was below average from the start, climbing may -still- be an issue for you, compared to one with VG or higher. This is why in the post about silly race/guild combos, half giant Psi is -hilarious-.

[jcljules]

Well if you guys insist that the system works like this, and that powerful long-livers do get taken down on occasion by upstarts, I guess this sort of change wouldn't be necessary. But I'll have to take your word for it, because I haven't seen/heard of anything like what Riev described, at least not yet.

[mansa]

Well if you guys insist that the system works like this, and that powerful long-livers do get taken down on occasion by upstarts, I guess this sort of change wouldn't be necessary. But I'll have to take your word for it, because I haven't seen/heard of anything like what Riev described, at least not yet.

What's killing off all the Byn Sargents, then?

When was the last time you saw someone have a character for longer than 18 months?

Somehow, everybody is dying and making new characters.  Nobody lives forever.

[jcljules]

Well if you guys insist that the system works like this, and that powerful long-livers do get taken down on occasion by upstarts, I guess this sort of change wouldn't be necessary. But I'll have to take your word for it, because I haven't seen/heard of anything like what Riev described, at least not yet.

What's killing off all the Byn Sargents, then?

When was the last time you saw someone have a character for longer than 18 months?

Somehow, everybody is dying and making new characters.  Nobody lives forever.

Well I know that for most PCs it is still very easy to die, no matter how long you've been around. But I have known a few PCs who seem to have reached that pinnacle of 'never-die'-dom. As for your 18 months question... I haven't been playing that long, but from clan boards I have known several PCs who have lived longer than that--much longer, in fact.

[Riev]

Do try to remember too, JC, that those long lived PCs that you read about on the boards, and hear about, are -one- PC out of probably a thousand that end up still surviving. And even they, too, die. Having a PC over 200d played is spectacular, but by that time you are quite trusted among the imms (I'd think) and likely are not going around bullying newbie PCs because you know they are 0days played.


I hate to be the one to say it, but if you've never had a supra powerful character, at least enough to see what you are talking about, then you shouldn't even mention it. If there is the 'idea' that mundanes are too powerful, then sure. Bring it up, discuss it, see if it can be changed. Your idea of skill changes, though, seem like an unnecessary change coming from the perception that long-lived PCs are immortal.

[jcljules]

:goes to create a supra-powerful character so he can test the veracity of %riev points.

[Lizzie]

Well I know that for most PCs it is still very easy to die, no matter how long you've been around. But I have known a few PCs who seem to have reached that pinnacle of 'never-die'-dom. As for your 18 months question... I haven't been playing that long, but from clan boards I have known several PCs who have lived longer than that--much longer, in fact.

I appreciate the frustration concerning coded combat skills. However, I don't think I need to remind you (or, I shouldn't need to remind you), that there are many characters who have been long-lived, who were -not- combat-class characters. And there have been many who were, but weren't all that impressive skill-wise, or stat-wise, or spar-wise, or survivability-wise.

My longest living PC to date was a ranger/jeweler who sucked in sparring and had the natural defenses of a tregil. She couldn't wear heavy protective armor because it fucked with her encumbrance. She made it to Kurac Sergeant and was in line for being an outrider when she was killed 14 months after I rolled her up. She pissed off LOTS of people, and witnessed and participated in some of the most fantastical freaky world-changing shit I've ever heard about in the history of this game.

My next-longest living PC was another ranger who rarely sparred, rode a lot but rarely hunted, and spent many RL months being a mundane, hired, commoner merchant in a merchant house. She could skin real good. Other than that, her skills were so-so, code-wise. She also pissed off LOTS of people, and made LOTS of friends, and was only attacked by an enemy once. On the day her enemy murdered her.

You don't -have- to be buff or majorly skilled to live a long time. You simply have to outlive your enemies. There are LOTS of ways of doing that, and going toe-to-toe against them in combat is only one method. Avoiding having enemies is another, though not nearly as much fun. Outsmarting them is another - but that requires that the -player- is smart enough to pull it off. Another is to surround yourself with influential friends, or dangerous friends, or dangerous influential friends.

You don't ever have to lift a blade in a fight to beat your enemy. And because of this fact, it really doesn't make any difference at all how buff you are, or how buff your enemy is. Because you're BOTH gonna die, eventually, and there ain't nothing you can do about it.

[titansfan]

lol

[Synthesis]

Something about this game has been bothering me for a while now, and its related to the skills code. When you first start out with a character in Zalanthas, its extremely difficult to get good at basic skills. If you're twinking and taking shortcuts, it takes weeks of work. If you're doing it right, it takes months.

It's not extremely difficult to get 'good' at anything except basic offense/defense (i.e. the 'invisible' skills that don't show up on your skills list), and apparently weapons skills.  Almost every other skill can go from 0% to 100% (or whatever the min-maxes are) in about 10 days of playtime.  This is actually one of the reasons I prefer Armageddon:  a total newb can become extremely competent extremely quickly. Compared to almost any other MUD in existence, the skill grind is minimal.  It doesn't take months of work, twinking, or shortcuts.  It does take a bit of OOC experience, and some reasoned analysis.

Once PCs have put a certain amount of effort into their characters... be it 30 or 40 days played or something... they become indestructible.

This is not true at all.  Poison, for one thing, is a great equalizer if you have access to the really nasty kinds.  Magick, psionics, rumors, and scheming can all bring down the best.  Furthermore, warriors are really the only mundane guild that can become almost untouchable in melee.  With the others, other PCs will always be a threat.

This would allow for a whole lot more conflict within the game. If you have a long-lived assassin who has been around for real life years, you should no longer feel entirely safe. Yeah--you're one of the best---but it should definitely be possible for a relatively new assassin, who had been around for a few months and had amazing abilities, to best you. Long-lived pickpockets should be nervous when they start hearing about another stickyfingers on the street who is nicking things from passing nobles. They should not be thinking OOCly, as many do now, "This PC has 40 days played! There is no way that newbie is better than me!"

Here's a protip:  people survive for years with maxed warriors, assassins, etc. because they've avoided pissing the wrong people off (or make amends quickly when they do), not because they're so uber they can't be killed.

As opposed to how it works now:
Example)
Amos the Byn trooper plays for 4RL years and survives. He p0wns everyone. No-one can ever challenge him, ever. He can only die through storage, in an IMM-supported plot, or by being killed by a magicker. He carries cures with him everywhere he goes.

This is only true for warriors vs. other warriors.  An assassin could still OHK Trooper Amos.  A ranger could still ride circles around him and light him up with arrows.  Burglars, pickpockets, and merchants aren't combat guilds, and so they aren't particularly relevant in a PvP analysis.  (I'm also limiting it to mundane guilds, because obviously magickers and psionicists can wtfpwn.)

Now I know what the main complaint about this is going to be. That it will just lead to people rerolling like mad.

The main complaint so far seems to be that your observations are mistaken.  There is no problem here that is in need of a solution.

[jcljules]

Well I've played primarily socially based PCs in my time in game so far---my complaints here and observations of other PCs are the main reason I haven't tried more skill and combat-based roles. But maybe I'm mistaken, as you're saying, and the code isn't as flawed when it comes to that as I've suspected

[Lizzie]

I think all sides have valid points, but the thing is...the only time the "untouchable warrior" is a problem, is when that "untouchable warrior" is your character's enemy. The rest of the time, he's either a non-issue because you don't know him, don't know anyone else who knows him, and have no reason to care about him..or..because he's your character's pal.

I'd say the vast majority of the time, the "untouchable warrior" will ONLY be a problem to that warrior's enemy. And..even then...if that enemy can't muster up a few pals to take that "untouchable warrior" down, then I'd have to say that enemy has more problems than one single untouchable warrior enemy.

[LoD]

Here's a protip:  people survive for years with maxed warriors, assassins, etc. because they've avoided pissing the wrong people off (or make amends quickly when they do), not because they're so uber they can't be killed.

This is likely the number one reason for any character's longevity.  You have to manage risk versus reward and pay careful attention to the constantly changing tapestry that is the Armageddon player base.  If you consider every character a thread, constantly weaving itself into the storyline, there is a pattern that develops and, if you have the time, you can watch it and even anticipate its course granted enough IC work and information.

It's not hard to recognize the long-time characters, form opinions on their MO's, and develop plans to either befriend, neutralize, or eliminate them from the tapestry if your threads seem to be on a collision course.  A character's skills are only useful in certain situations and environments and veteran players learn to recognize what those situations are, how to avoid them, and how to use them to their advantage.

-LoD

[Turbomatic Tribal]

Think of characters as chess pieces. Longevity: achieved.

[Majikal]

Once PCs have put a certain amount of effort into their characters... be it 30 or 40 days played or something... they become indestructible.

In my time I've witnessed more than my share of Max/"indestructible" warriors with their Bronze sword of Doom fall to some simple politics, cause everyone knows that politics are always equipped with a Bronze sword of Doom +1

I like the skill gain as it is, the base skills raise just quick enough that if you're play times are scarce then you'll still be able to play a competently skilled pc.

[Agent_137]

Well that's not exactly what I meant. I was saying that people should get the same skills that they do now, based on guilds, but that their competence at those skills should be more based on stats then amount of time practicing those skills. Yes, I was assuming that Amos and Malik were both guild_warrior.

no, horrible plan. then the ones who suicide until they have good stats will have ALL the advantages. Fuck that. Skill focused system for the win. It's already easy enough to hire the right person for the right price to kill ANY long lived char. THIS IS A PERMA DEATH MUD.

[a strange shadow]

The moment you think you're unstoppable, someone will stop you.

I think things are fine the way they are.

[jcljules]

Think of characters as chess pieces. Longevity: achieved.

I like this analogy, I see what you're saying.