The woes of the aging gamer

[Titania]

How what I said helps, but not fixes it is is add more ways to get your skills up with the time you do have. I guess if someone doesn't exactly agree with you, you jump to bullying with your yes-man toadies.

[EldritchOrigins]

Would there be any chance of dying in the automation?  Risk vs. reward and all.

[a strange shadow]

Quality over quantity I don't see as a bad thing. I doubt these ideas will ever come to pass, but a girl can dream.

Eldritch: I imagine the auto-gain would be capped at a mid-low level. Somewhere around 'competent enough to not suck horribly, but not really great, either'.

[Potaje]

a better argument is that training and crafting are role play opportunities as much as sitting on ones ass in the tavern socializing. Basically whats being suggested is the free ride to twinking, because you abhor the -in game- grind.
I simply disagree, Synthesis, who are you to say give it up, you post your opinions, these are mine, whether you agree with them or not.  

Yeah, they're your opinions, but there's a difference between "having an opinion that people disagree with that has no negative effects on those who disagree with it" and "having an opinion that people disagree with that does have negative effects on those who disagree with it"  (see: gay marriage; pedophilia).

As far as role-playing is concerned:  going back to my analogy...the DM could say that "oh, well, roleplaying out memorizing your spells is roleplaying just as much as going out to firestorm a goblin camp...suck it up."  The question isn't about what is or isn't roleplay:  it's about what is fun roleplay.

Now, you might answer, "Well, sparring and salt-foraging are fun, for me," and that's fine.  For you.  However, seeing as this is a multiplayer game, I think the optimal situation promotes an environment where everyone can enjoy the game, not just those who have three or more hours to put in every day.

What I went on to say is that there needs to be a balance if you want the realism your asking for in your stat/skill boosts. You pc needs to also have the - I constantly exist so I should be much better than I am - scenario. If you can justify the point that you would be always training then It is equally justifiable that your pc would have to go out of the safety of a concealed environment and thus should take all the same chance of being killed, injured or robbed.
So your whole comment about my rebuke of your idea is short sighted and purely defensiveness.

[Synthesis]

a better argument is that training and crafting are role play opportunities as much as sitting on ones ass in the tavern socializing. Basically whats being suggested is the free ride to twinking, because you abhor the -in game- grind.
I simply disagree, Synthesis, who are you to say give it up, you post your opinions, these are mine, whether you agree with them or not.  

Yeah, they're your opinions, but there's a difference between "having an opinion that people disagree with that has no negative effects on those who disagree with it" and "having an opinion that people disagree with that does have negative effects on those who disagree with it"  (see: gay marriage; pedophilia).

As far as role-playing is concerned:  going back to my analogy...the DM could say that "oh, well, roleplaying out memorizing your spells is roleplaying just as much as going out to firestorm a goblin camp...suck it up."  The question isn't about what is or isn't roleplay:  it's about what is fun roleplay.

Now, you might answer, "Well, sparring and salt-foraging are fun, for me," and that's fine.  For you.  However, seeing as this is a multiplayer game, I think the optimal situation promotes an environment where everyone can enjoy the game, not just those who have three or more hours to put in every day.

What I went on to say is that there needs to be a balance if you want the realism your asking for in your stat/skill boosts. You pc needs to also have the - I constantly exist so I should be much better than I am - scenario. If you can justify the point that you would be always training then It is equally justifiable that your pc would have to go out of the safety of a concealed environment and thus should take all the same chance of being killed, injured or robbed.
So your whole comment about my rebuke of your idea is short sighted and purely defensiveness.

If I was short-sighted and defensive, it's because your original posts were far less conciliatory and open-minded than your subsequent posts have been.  Your first post was "people will log in once a year to grief everyone!" and "everyone will stop playing!", two outcomes which, quite frankly, I'm sure you realize are ridiculous and would never be allowed, yet you brought them up presumably for purely rhetorical purposes.  Your next post was "well, critical failure should result in DEATH," which again...is just as dumb a suggestion as your previous two (see: necksnap).  Finally, you retreated to "well, that's just my opinion, man."  So it strikes me as fairly absurd that you're accusing -me- of being casually dismissive, when you haven't posted anything that could be even remotely considered as a constructive, intelligent response.

If you re-read my original suggestion, I included in it the possibility of some negative consequences on "critical failures" of the default-activities script.  However, I think "death" would be a particularly stupid potential outcome of failure.  Clearly, we'd like to tie reward to risk, and that's really all that needs to be said about it on the GDB, because the particular reward ratio would be something that requires data that a) aren't publicly available and b) shouldn't be posted on the GDB, even if known.

[brytta.leofa]

I'd be interested to see a system something like this:

Suppose that skill level is a numeric value from 0 to 100.

(1) For every skill slot, track the amount of improvement in the last day and in the last week.  (Rolling average, not Sunday-to-Sunday.)  Call these numbers SkillGainedLastDay and SkillGainedLastWeek.
(2) Set two global caps: MaxGainPerDay and MaxGainPerWeek.  (You might adjust the base values for each character based on his stats.)
(3) Set two skill gain rates: ImprovePerFail and ImprovePerSuccess.

When you use a skill and fail, that skill increases like so:
  skill = skill + ImprovePerFail * min( MaxGainPerDay - SkillGainedLastDay, MaxGainPerWeek - SkillGainedLastWeek )

When you use a skill and succeed, the skill increases by:
  skill = skill + ImprovePerSuccess * min( MaxGainPerDay - SkillGainedLastDay, MaxGainperWeek - SkillGainedLastWeek )

This system gives you much flexibility for tweaking how you want the game to feel.  If you want to really level the field between active and casual players, you set:
  MaxGainPerWeek = 2 * MaxGainPerDay  (after your second day, you've maxed your skills for the week)
  ImprovePerFail = 0.7  (a single failure gives you 70% of the total allowed skill gain for the day/week)
  ImprovePerSuccess = 0.3  (even succeeding at a skill helps you a ton)

If you want to put things in hard/grindy mode, you set:
   MaxGainPerWeek = 7 * MaxGainPerDay   (effectively no weekly cap)
   ImprovePerFail = 0.1  (requires many failures to max out your improvement cap)
   ImprovePerSuccess = 0.0  (no improvement when you succeed)


What I like about this, as opposed to setting up offline training, is that it does require consistent play.  If you're not logged in AT ALL, exposed to other players and the environment, and actually using your skills (at least a little bit), you will not improve.  Yet it can be tuned such that even a little bit of usage will keep you even with your fellow players in the skillin'-up arms race.

[Kismetic]

I think TL;DR is a little rude when considering someone who is totally nice, like brytta.  So I'll say, TMM;DR (Too Much Math; Didn't Read).   

@ Synthesis:

While I like your idea, and would endorse it, do you think it's possible that people will play Arm a lot less, increasing the chance of losing playerbase to other activities?

[Cutthroat]

I seriously doubt people would abuse automated actions by staying logged out to improve if automation was capped significantly and/or slowed down in comparison to actually playing. Plus, players love to actually play the game whenever they can  CRACKAGEDDON will call them back if abusing automation ever entered their mind.

I don't see a problem with auto-paying rent by drawing out from a bank account either (our bankers are also our landlords, after all). It actually sounds like a convenient feature that would help everyone. You could even offer the option to toggle it at an apartment lobby.

However, considering these changes are probably kind of difficult to put into the current game, I think it's important to go over a couple of tips that casual players might be able to use.

Consistency, not quantity, is key. Being on during the same times regularly counts for more than being able to give large amounts of time to the game. If other players know your PC will be around 7PM - 9PM daily, or the same few hours on weekends, or something similar, then they'll be more likely to seek you out and interact with you. Plenty of people agree with their family and friends to set aside time for their hobbies, so you don't need to be ashamed of doing so either. Though I can't speak for staff, I would guess you are more likely to get a sponsored role if you play regular times, too.

Make your time count. Know what you like to play in Armageddon, and make sure most or all of your time is devoted to it by planning your PC background carefully to allow for what you like to do. If you like PC-to-PC interaction the most, play characters who could spend most or all of their time in taverns. If you like hunting and exploring, play a ranger and possibly join a clan giving you the freedom to do that. And so on and so forth. You might be able to find ideas for a role you might like by asking GDBers for a role. Helpers can also help you make a PC to some extent.

Tell us what times you think you could meet and I'm sure a few people will give you ideas for a role if you're stumped.

[brytta.leofa]

I think TL;DR is a little rude when considering someone who is totally nice, like brytta.  So I'll say, TMM;DR (Too Much Math; Didn't Read).   

TL;DR: Set up daily and weekly caps for skill gain to limit the hardcore players.  (That's not an original idea.)  Make your first few practice attempts of the day or week worth more than your later ones.

[Synthesis]

Yeah, I'd be relatively satisfied with a system where you could get one good login per week (Sunday night for most people, I imagine) and get get 70-80% of the same skillgain as someone who logged in every day.  

However, I wouldn't tie the calculation to the relative amount you've improved, but to the amount of time you've actually spent logged in.  There's no reason for such a system to benefit people who play 8 hours a day, but spend the entire time mudsexing, for instance.

Thus, SkillgainPerFail would be inversely proportional to RollingAverageLoginTime and directly proportional to (MaxSkillgainThisWeek - ActualSkillgainPerWeek), while MaxSkillgainPerWeek would be capped at the same value for all cases, and obviously would be a hard cap on progression.

At the same time, the wisdom stat could modify (increase or decrease) both MaxSkillgainPerWeek and SkillgainPerFail, although I'd remove the "increases only on fails" restriction, because at higher levels, that amounts to a time-played advantage, as failures become quite difficult to achieve in some cases.

But skills are only half the battle, here.  Income equalities persist...but I imagine that certain things like salt foraging are intentionally weighted toward the "excess income" side to lend some support in that regard...even if they have the potential to make the income divide even larger, when taken to extremes by individuals with high playtimes.

How what I said helps, but not fixes it is is add more ways to get your skills up with the time you do have. I guess if someone doesn't exactly agree with you, you jump to bullying with your yes-man toadies.

Chill out, dude...nobody's bullying.  I was just outlining the limitations of your approach, with respect to some of the problems that have been outlined.

[Kismetic]

I think TL;DR is a little rude when considering someone who is totally nice, like brytta.  So I'll say, TMM;DR (Too Much Math; Didn't Read).   

TL;DR: Set up daily and weekly caps for skill gain to limit the hardcore players.  (That's not an original idea.)  Make your first few practice attempts of the day or week worth more than your later ones.

As someone with a lot of free time, currently (but not always in the past), who now plays Arm hardcore, I can tell you that it's already pretty hard to max out a character. 

Or maybe I'm doing it wrong!  I definitely would hate for it to be harder.  Having had a character before with over 1, 000 hours logged that I felt like was only halfway through their coded development seemed pretty ominous (in a good, and challenging way).

[brytta.leofa]

Thus, SkillgainPerFail would be inversely proportional to RollingAverageLoginTime and directly proportional to (MaxSkillgainThisWeek - ActualSkillgainPerWeek),

Isn't that already covered by the necessity of actually using the skill?  If you're idling/tavern sitting/sexin', you're not using your weapon skills.

Or maybe I'm doing it wrong!  I definitely would hate for it to be harder.

I don't want it to be harder, per se; I want it to be very nearly the same difficulty for "average" and "hardcore" players, with "casual" players skilling up at a slower but still respectable rate.  Whether that means that your skills would increase slower or that everybody else's would increase faster...would depend on how things were set.

[EldritchOrigins]

This is my basic understanding of this, would it be like increasing (doubling, trippling?) skill gains for those logged in over an hour (or some other minimum amount of time) but less than two hours (or some other max amount of time)  in a 24 hour (or some other extended) period?  With the gains being applied after the extended period?

[Synthesis]

Thus, SkillgainPerFail would be inversely proportional to RollingAverageLoginTime and directly proportional to (MaxSkillgainThisWeek - ActualSkillgainPerWeek),

Isn't that already covered by the necessity of actually using the skill?  If you're idling/tavern sitting/sexin', you're not using your weapon skills.

Yes, but under your proposed system, someone who logs in predominantly to mudsex, whose job has nothing to do with sparring or fighting, etc, etc. could advance in combat skills almost as quickly as someone who spars every day.  Thus, your proposed system simply benefits everyone who spars little, not just those who spar little because they don't have the time to log in and do it.  Example:  you can mudsex 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, then spar once, and you'd have 70-80% of the same skillgain as someone who spars 8 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Clearly, that isn't a defensible system.

I don't want everyone to get easier skillgains, only those who simply aren't logging in frequently enough under the current system.  Thus, for simplicity's sake, it should be tied to the variable that matters:  actual time spent logged in.

[Ktavialt]

I'm just chiming in to agree with the OP.  I chronically play rogue magickers because somehow it fits i.e. you never get "in" with too many people anyways, so why develop relationships?

I feel ya, I had a Sorcerer (talk about anti-social) die many years ago ultimately because I could not log into an RPT (though that isn't the whole reason).  Its sort of frustrating.

[NOFUN]

Seems like such a system would discourage the hardcore players to maintain there high play-times, which in a leadership role is always nice to have.

[MeTekillot]

I figure a good way to do it would to gradually increase how much skill your allowed to improve the longer you haven't been logged on. Maybe this could be coupled with gaining just a bit of skill while logged off, too?

Say you log on every day for a week. Your max gain is determined by wisdom, so you have decent wisdom, like 20. That means you can improve your skill every two hours (i am spitballing i do not know how code works). Now, your skill timer gradually gets smaller and smaller the less you log in. Say you don't log in for a week. Your skill timer gets reset to skill gain every thirty minutes or every ten minutes, to where you eventually get back to what would be an average. Gain skill and the skill timer gets slightly longer until it equalizes with your wisdom as normal.

[Sokotra]

While I like your idea, and would endorse it, do you think it's possible that people will play Arm a lot less, increasing the chance of losing playerbase to other activities?

I don't think that would happen, because I think that the main issue for people is that they WANT to be able to login more... just can't.  I would pick the chance to log in and actually play the game over the choice of staying offline and having minimal skill increases and missing the other fun I could be having actually being in the game.

Seems like such a system would discourage the hardcore players to maintain there high play-times, which in a leadership role is always nice to have.

I would have pretty close to the same answer to this... most people that like to play a lot are going to do so anyway.  I'm pretty positive a properly balanced system would not cause any issues like this.  Most of the fun is actually being in the game and interacting... it would just make interacting more fun and viable for those that can't be in the game as much as they would like.

[Synthesis]

I figure a good way to do it would to gradually increase how much skill your allowed to improve the longer you haven't been logged on. Maybe this could be coupled with gaining just a bit of skill while logged off, too?

Say you log on every day for a week. Your max gain is determined by wisdom, so you have decent wisdom, like 20. That means you can improve your skill every two hours (i am spitballing i do not know how code works). Now, your skill timer gradually gets smaller and smaller the less you log in. Say you don't log in for a week. Your skill timer gets reset to skill gain every thirty minutes or every ten minutes, to where you eventually get back to what would be an average. Gain skill and the skill timer gets slightly longer until it equalizes with your wisdom as normal.

That's basically what brytta.leofa and I are suggesting, but by changing the amount of skillgain per boost, rather than the frequency with which you can get boosts.

Again, a frequency-based system isn't going to help a low-time player, because even if it technically allows them to spam-train and get multiple skillgains quickly, the point is that a low-time player doesn't want to spend all of his time spam-training.

[Drayab]

You guys are doing a good job of hashing this out, but I personally wouldn't support moving the training aspect of the game off stage, so to speak. In my opinion, training is an important aspect of character development, and you are cheating yourself and your fellow players by taking it off stage. If you don't like training backstab anymore, maybe it is time to play a merchant.

[Majikal]

You guys are doing a good job of hashing this out, but I personally wouldn't support moving the training aspect of the game off stage, so to speak. In my opinion, training is an important aspect of character development, and you are cheating yourself and your fellow players by taking it off stage. If you don't like training backstab anymore, maybe it is time to play a merchant.

I have to agree here.

[Synthesis]

You guys are doing a good job of hashing this out, but I personally wouldn't support moving the training aspect of the game off stage, so to speak. In my opinion, training is an important aspect of character development, and you are cheating yourself and your fellow players by taking it off stage. If you don't like training backstab anymore, maybe it is time to play a merchant.

We've already suggested removing certain skills from consideration, here.

We've also already addressed the "training is roleplay" objection.

If you have specific counter-arguments to those, by all means, continue, but simply stating the same thing over and over again because you couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread is just lazy.

[Kalai]

Mm... Just going to note ... There is somewhat of a fundamental flaw in a game, as a game, that rewards you for not playing it.  

[Synthesis]

Mm... Just going to note ... There is somewhat of a fundamental flaw in a game, as a game, that rewards you for not playing it.  

One man's "reward for not logging in" is another man's "removal of a penalty for not logging in."

And it's not a fundamental game design flaw unless there's some negative unintended consequence.  Some have been proposed, but ironically hinting that there may be others isn't really that helpful.

[Sokotra]

Well, I think you should still be rewarded more for playing as opposed to not playing...(even though one could argue that the privilege of having time to play more than others is reward enough in itself) but I think the whole point of balancing things out would be to not penalize those of us that have minimal time to play.  Obviously it would still be unbalanced if you were rewarding people for playing less... I think we are trying to figure out how to meet in the middle somewhere so that low-time players are not at such a huge disadvantage and they are able to focus more on role-playing their character properly.  It's hard to RP a rugged, experienced <whatever> when you barely have enough time to hone your skills enough to <do whatever>.     Yes, we all know that skills are not everything, but the coded aspect of the game is a huge part of the reason why we love Armageddon.