Combat Skill Progression Revamped

[Clearsighted]

...and yet again...why I liked the skills better when people -couldn't- see what level they were at.

As stated...you will improve when it is IC to do so.  Naturally.  Because you will be fighting things you need to improve to do well against.  If you're already doing well, you won't improve, because you're already playing the badass regardless of what your skills say.  Just because there are 'tricks' to getting better doesn't mean that people who have played the game for 10 years and entered numerous debates and gone through numerous changes to code enough times to know what the trick is doesn't mean they are using advantages.  I haven't had a PC get past apprentice weapon skills since you were able to see skill levels.  I don't think.

The objective is not for everyone to reach master.  The objective is not to find a safe way to train things up until every fight is safe.  Stop it.

I also preferred it when we couldn't see what our skills were. But at the same time, I think you're being very misleading here. The objective is to reach master and branch an advanced weapon, as much as it is for every gicker you have played to branch their top-tier spells, once they got going. Somehow, I don't think you ever went out of your way to avoid doing that.

In fact, there isn't a single skill or category of skills in the entire game that people look down upon, or treat with the same condescension, as those who want to master weapon skills. No one bats an eye about stealth, riding, barrier or fireball.

[hyzhenhok]

I don't see how making players ignorant of the fact that they can't continue improving their skills by sparring solves the problem that it doesn't make sense that they can't continue improving their skill by sparring.

I really like the visible skill levels. It makes perfect sense that after trying to do something a few times, you wouldn't be sure if you're getting better at it, but over a long period of time your improvement becomes noticeable. That is something that makes perfect sense to happen and recognize ICly.

It's perfectly IC for characters to notice that at some point, it feels like sparring is no longer improving their skills. Good riddance to the days where newbies had no way of figuring this out until they saw some gruff obvi-veteran come into sparring with 1000 stone in rocks in his pack, or they got the inside scoop via AIM.

[Armaddict]

...and yet again...why I liked the skills better when people -couldn't- see what level they were at.

As stated...you will improve when it is IC to do so.  Naturally.  Because you will be fighting things you need to improve to do well against.  If you're already doing well, you won't improve, because you're already playing the badass regardless of what your skills say.  Just because there are 'tricks' to getting better doesn't mean that people who have played the game for 10 years and entered numerous debates and gone through numerous changes to code enough times to know what the trick is doesn't mean they are using advantages.  I haven't had a PC get past apprentice weapon skills since you were able to see skill levels.  I don't think.

The objective is not for everyone to reach master.  The objective is not to find a safe way to train things up until every fight is safe.  Stop it.

I also preferred it when we couldn't see what our skills were. But at the same time, I think you're being very misleading here. The objective is to reach master and branch an advanced weapon, as much as it is for every gicker you have played to branch their top-tier spells, once they got going. Somehow, I don't think you ever went out of your way to avoid doing that.

In fact, there isn't a single skill or category of skills in the entire game that people look down upon, or treat with the same condescension, as those who want to master weapon skills. No one bats an eye about stealth, riding, barrier or fireball.

...you're literally spewing the opposite of what I just said under the statement that I'm being misleading.  Stealth skills, I use them to be stealthy, and when they start succeeding, I'm stealthy.  Riding, I use to travel, and when I succeed, I travel.  Barrier, I use to block my mind, and when I'm blocking my mind, it's blocked.  Likewise, someone who fights, fights until they're winning, and then they're winning.  The objective is not to get the advanced weapon skill, it's to win their fights.  The advanced weapon skills, when they were put in, were, if I recall correctly, said to be intentionally placed so that they would be hard to attain, and the mark of a truly developed and active warrior with untold amounts of victory.

The weapon skills follow the same platform as almost every other skill in the game, but it is the one that is focused on for -grinding- the most.  What you're proposing is that everyone should be able to get to weapon mastery, which has long been the 'holy grail' of the game for a warrior, not the expectation.  I don't think every person who chooses the warrior class is -entitled- to the right of becoming a legendary weaponsmaster, which is essentially what you become at the point that you're reaching those levels.  Changing the way it works under that pretense that every warrior is expected to reach that level is the misleading concept here, not the other way around (note that this affects the other classes that get high caps on weapon skills as well, but nowhere near the same prowess).

To put this in a different light:  On a PvP front, which is ultimately the only place where this truly makes a change due to it already being noted that warriors get to the point in the -current- system that they're doing ridiculously insane combat situations without even attaining mastery, all these stealth skills other methods are really the other classes way of dealing with the warrior.  A twenty day warrior who went through most of their play time in the Byn is -already- incredibly scary to deal with, even with those alternative methods.  To have warriors suddenly hitting that mastery level much more quickly is an incredibly frightening prospect.  It changes from 'this is very risky, things needs to go right' to 'If he draws a weapon, we're -going- to die'...on what is a relatively short lived warrior.  So when you say...

In fact, there isn't a single skill or category of skills in the entire game that people look down upon, or treat with the same condescension, as those who want to master weapon skills.

...you're ignoring the very basic fundamentals of why that is.  Weapon skills are the single most important combat oriented skills there are.  When I see someone spam climbing, I chuckle.  It's obvious.  When I see someone wandering through rarely-commuted streets stealing, I snicker.  Why?  Because it's someone finding a reason to use their skills, but in a way that their skills -would- be used. When I see a guy going and picking fights, gathering up npc's so that he's fighting five versus one when he could have killed each alone, or two at a time, I say...'What fighter would ever do this?'  It isn't the development of weapon skills that is looked down upon, it is the IC measures people go through to further an OOC end.  Those measures are very drastic in comparison, which is your original argument, which is answered by the first thing above.  They're not supposed to be reached by everyone.  They're a special mark.  It's not the same as a poisoner who doesn't fail coating, or a rider who never falls when he charges, or a pickpocket who can rob you blind.  Every movement they make in combat with mastery is a masterful death stroke (not literally one shotting, but you ain't gonna be able to stand and fight this guy) to all but the most skilled opponents.  Those opponents are going to be other warriors.  Everyone else is tiptoeing around trying to avoid that fight.

Basically, much the same as Synthesis, I see and understand the flaws, but the changes that have been presented about it up to date leave much more glaring repercussions than you're letting on.

If it's all about the advanced weapon skills (which I know very little about, I only know how scary effective high weapon skills actually are, particularly against those who -aren't- engaging in that insane behavior to twink out their combat effectiveness), then the better fix is not a quicker way to mastery, but a lower point where the advanced skill is branched.  However, again, I believe that such is counter-intuitive to the purpose that those skills were originally put in place for, which is the mark of a long-lived, truly almost-legendary fighter.  If that's inaccurate, I apologize.  I'm going solely off of memory here.  It's also late, and I'm a little rambly.

And as a sidenote...I rarely play mages.  The ones I have played did not branch some spells, because I was more concerned with getting the ones I had to full fruition, then only using them as needed.  Sooo...if you meant that jab at me personally, it's wrong.

Edited to add:
Basically...the way things 'are' as is equal for all people who 'fight well', i.e. Have high weapon skill caps.  Warriors are the only ones that have something at the end of it though, and everything that counteracts those mastery levels are higher on the warrior, which puts them in the ultimo position there.  Making weapon skills skyrocket faster when it is essentially only other PC's who you will need those higher levels for is going to hurt.  A lot.  The most common classes will become an army of death machines, rather than it being the mark of the seasoned veteran.  While I can understand the frustration of having skills that do not often branch...those branches are not really the concern to me so much as the power of their predecessing skills at high levels anyway.  So again...I think the 'objective=weapons skill branch' rather than 'objective=I'm a badass in a fight' is the source of that frustration.
--I also think that the downward trend in reckless pvp harms this scenario.  Where the 'norm' has finally become what people wanted, which is people safely staying in cities and sparring versus being raiders and raided constantly...you're running into a lot less scenarios where skills can improve because you've got a bunch of people stuck with each other with wooden sticks rather than events of single, life-threatening combat with no holds barred.

[Armaddict]

I don't see how making players ignorant of the fact that they can't continue improving their skills by sparring solves the problem that it doesn't make sense that they can't continue improving their skill by sparring.

I really like the visible skill levels. It makes perfect sense that after trying to do something a few times, you wouldn't be sure if you're getting better at it, but over a long period of time your improvement becomes noticeable. That is something that makes perfect sense to happen and recognize ICly.

It's perfectly IC for characters to notice that at some point, it feels like sparring is no longer improving their skills. Good riddance to the days where newbies had no way of figuring this out until they saw some gruff obvi-veteran come into sparring with 1000 stone in rocks in his pack, or they got the inside scoop via AIM.

To clarify, the only reason that comment was there was not as a jab, but because I think it is in actuality contributing to the very problem at hand.  Prior to seeing it, you'd hit that point, and you'd realize it,  over time the same way you do now, but you didn't have a standard readout telling you that you're not -actually- as badass as you think you are.  So you'd start rolling around like the badass that you are, but would run across another badass that you didn't anticipate, and...if you survived...become more badass.  With the readout, it seems to foster this idea that you need to max out safely, which results in less risk taking, which results in less skill ups.  It's changed the level that people feel badass at, despite all IC information telling you the opposite.

If you're in the Byn, even with a journeyman weapon skill, and you're smashing everyone in the ring?  You're a badass.  You're going to smash most people in a real fight.  However, there is now a driving need to continue to find ways surpass journeyman despite the fact that you have reached the badass state as is, and will only get -more- badass with every other badass you encounter.

[Clearsighted]

Interesting post, Armaddict. I agree with the general sentiment: We use skills to not fail, not to see <advanced> or <master> besides them. But at the same time...weapon skills have a uniquely low ceiling. It would be logical for people to assume that by fighting more dangerous creatures, they would become better with those weapons. This is not the case. Still, it is a very respectable defense of the status quo, and I do not find your reasoning as flippant as I initially assumed. So there's that.

I'm going to cherry pick your one comment that I do take a meaningful exception to:

The weapon skills follow the same platform as almost every other skill in the game, but it is the one that is focused on for -grinding- the most.  What you're proposing is that everyone should be able to get to weapon mastery, which has long been the 'holy grail' of the game for a warrior, not the expectation.  I don't think every person who chooses the warrior class is -entitled- to the right of becoming a legendary weaponsmaster, which is essentially what you become at the point that you're reaching those levels.

I have two significant problems with this statement.

1) I don't think everyone should be entitled to become a legendary weaponmaster. I don't even think the grind should be lessened. But I'd like to see a scenario, where someone could eventually continue to make incremental progress, without having even partial and incremental advancement be completely impossible, without fighting a select two or three critters. It might be that incremental progress would take thirty or forty-five days played-time to master. That's fine. But at least there will be progress.

And just so noone forgets...I am not a proponent of the 'reaching mastery via sparring safely in the city' faction. I think sparring is basically fine for what it is. But I do think you should be rewarded by tackling significantly dangerous creatures. That you should learn more from fighting a mek or an elite gith than a verrin hawk. Instead, I favor a risk vs reward system that is parallel to the risk vs reward for every other skill in the game. Right now, it's no risk/all reward vs all risk/no reward, except for a very brief and fleeting time in a character's development.

2) By your same logic, 'legendary magickers' who are maxed and branched in all of their magick skills, should be just as rare as warriors who have been able to branch an advanced weapon. I also find it curious that the definition of a 'legendary warrior' is one that manages to pick up a polearm or a pike.

There's nothing inherently faulty with your logic (legendary sorts being rare). But it should apply equally. It doesn't make sense to have say, 'Flaming Meteors of Death' branch after a few days of nil casting in some safe little location, without even actually having to use the spell in question in a dangerous scenario, but expect warriors that can use pikes to be incredibly rare. Everyone seems to be okay with legendary backstabbers, archers and crafters.

What I'm looking for, Armaddict, is consistency. I think one of the few valid reasons for changing the status quo is when serious inconsistency is identified. That it has been identified for ten years (As Synthesis noted) and nothing has been done about it, does not discourage me. I wanted Tuluk to be shut down for the last ten years as well, and that eventually happened, so positive change is possible. Also, I don't think staff is as enamored with the status quo as some players project onto them. I think there's a lot they'd like to do differently, given the time and resources, and discussions like these can help provoke ideas.

Not to beat Tuluk's corpse, but I saw some noted posters on this board fervently defend that city's existence for years, then flip on a dime when its surprise closure was announced, and discover all the reasons why doing so made sense. I think combat revamping would go much smoother than even that.

[Clearsighted]

I don't see how making players ignorant of the fact that they can't continue improving their skills by sparring solves the problem that it doesn't make sense that they can't continue improving their skill by sparring.

I really like the visible skill levels. It makes perfect sense that after trying to do something a few times, you wouldn't be sure if you're getting better at it, but over a long period of time your improvement becomes noticeable. That is something that makes perfect sense to happen and recognize ICly.

It's perfectly IC for characters to notice that at some point, it feels like sparring is no longer improving their skills. Good riddance to the days where newbies had no way of figuring this out until they saw some gruff obvi-veteran come into sparring with 1000 stone in rocks in his pack, or they got the inside scoop via AIM.

You're right of course. Albeit, it was fun in the old days to know that, when few others were aware of the limits of sparring, to build a complete wrecking ball of a character that could solo a unit of Byn. Nowadays most everyone knows, because everyone sees themselves stuck at journeyman. Hell, it wasn't so long ago that there were long-time vets of the game that barely knew advanced weapons existed. Now I'm seeing training razors and such, everywhere. People were much more overconfident (often to their detriment).

EDIT: Also, skill bumps. There's a good reason why razors and polearms are more common than they used to be...

[yousuff]

I think the system is a bit broken. My most badass character was only a month played, even my later combat characters that have had about 3 months played with awesome stats and better skills haven't been able to do the shit she did There's something wrong when there's such inconsistency, the character in question was able to kill kryl and mantis, (which she eventually died to when she met a large group of them, but that's besides the point) yet another character with a longer time played had skills miles better and stats also greater, but wasn't even able to kill carru.
Edit: I exagerrated a little bit about the three month bit. On reflection it was probably closer to one and a half, but it's still inconsistant.

[Synthesis]

I don't think warriors are the problem when it comes to weapon skills.  I think a bunch of assassins running around with piercing and bludgeoning maxed out would be much, much scarier...to the point of being legitimately game-breaking.  Maybe warrior/slipknife combos, but I've never played the slipknife sub, so I don't know what the max potential there is.

We are all blessed by the good fortune that there are very, very few assassins that ever reach instagib potential...and it's not because -backstab- is difficult to master.

[jstorrie]

I think that the mundane skill sets need to be completely restructured. surely replacing the class/subclass system is an unfeasible nightmare, but re-writing the skill trees for mundane classes is within the realm of possibility.

there's some serious weirdness with regards to who gets what, in my opinion. some of the differences between burglar, pickpocket and assassin don't make sense to me. the way certain classes branch parry seems like it encourages a monumental and un-fun grind, given how crucial parrying can be to being a combat PC. warriors' 'special goodies' come too late, are often not even that sweet, and as pointed out in this thread, can be difficult to earn without powergaming. and the existence of extended subguilds is also, I think, symptomatic of the system being screwed up; a healthy class/subclass system shouldn't need to patch its holes with even more special-er subguilds.

my suggestion is that staff strike a committee to come up with a new set of proposed skill trees. that committee could reach out privately to some of our more heinous powergamers for input, since people can't have much of a detailed conversation here due to having to avoid revealing code details.

personally I would prefer it if mundanes were very very simplified, maybe even down to just like three base classes, and then the subguilds were designed carefully such that they unlock characteristic skills within the branching tree.

the present system seems like just a pile of bandages applied to other bandages applied to other bandages, you know? it should be re-designed holistically.

[Aruven]

I hear a bunch of whining and noobs tired of seeing others reap the coded benefits

[HavokBlue]

If you can't resist the temptation to flame people and post nothing constructive perhaps consider not posting in a given thread at all

[Armaddict]

I hear a bunch of whining and noobs tired of seeing others reap the coded benefits

I don't think they're whining.  I think they're frustrated.

I've never gotten a weapon skill anywhere near mastery that I know of.  I think they're working under the assumption that other people are hitting mastery often through coded knowledge (though as noted, I know -how-, but that doesn't mean I'm out there twinking it out with my pcs), and they're working under the desire to hit truly 'maxxed' levels...even though those levels are hard to hit for everyone.  And for good reason.  Mastered weapon skills are scary.  Like Synthesis said...-anyone- who hits those levels are just...incredibly scary, and so those skills are intentionally made difficult to reach.  I honed in on the warrior because advanced weapon skills were used to reference my first post, and because warriors are the only ones actually built to be able to deal with someone with mastered weapon skills, aside from extreme slyness and/or magick, which makes making mastery 'easier' a much bigger deal than it was portrayed as.

Essentially, compared to all other skills...a person getting hide, sneak, disarm, bash, a magick spell, contact, barrier or any other skill from 70% up to 80% actually has an effect on a very minimal amount of circumstances.  Getting a weapon skill up from 70% to 80% has a -big effect- on every instance of combat they're ever in, and it continues to be a big effect all the way until mastery, which -is- unlike every other type of skill in the game.

[nauta]

One thing I'd like to see (perhaps implicit in some posts above) is for there to be skills progression after your first IG year (or maybe 2nd).  I haven't played too many PCs, and I certainly don't know tricks, but I've noticed the skills max out / plateau roughly around then.  Perhaps slower skill progression all around, or the ability to pick up new skills...

[RogueGunslinger]

I don't agree that weapons skills are unique or unlike anything else combat-wise in the game. Know what also has a big effect on combat? Poisons. Backstab. Sap. Disarm. Archery. Flee. Hide. There's nothing special about a warrior being able to do what they already do, only even better.  Advanced+ weapon skills are great, sure. They no more great defensively than high parry/shield use or offensively than a maxed backstab or even just two-handed. Weapon skills certainly aren't so powerful that they should be kept around journeyman baring questionable skill grinding in order to "balance" warriors. (not sure if that's what you were saying, Armaddict, but it sounded like it.)

A warrior with journeyman weapons skills and and mastered parry/shield-use or advanced etwo/dualwield is going to destroy any other class in single combat. Them getting up to Master Slashing isn't going to change anything except for add more range in the skill levels of other warriors they face. You might actually have an appreciable difference between a 15 day warrior and a 30 day warrior.

[Synthesis]

Yes, it does change things.  Drastically.

Journeyman to master is the difference between you escaping after a couple of hits versus being reel-locked and 3-shotted by back-to-back-to-back head and neck shots.  By a dude with average strength.

[Aruven]

I don't know if America is raising 'sensitive wussies' but I feel like the GDB is. My comment was a joke: I've been seeing discussions like this for over a decade now. I am traditionally not opposed to this discussion.

The more I read into though, the more I am on the side of not touching it at all. I'm seeing a lot of people (and this is a general trend more and more accepted as I see it) really just worried about code and their ability to boost it. Why? What roleplay comes from that?

At what point have you played a character in armageddon, that deserved a higher proficiency than you had so much it affected your RP? Even as a Jihaen I wasn't hitting max stats and I probably spent 60-70% of my time sparring in a tower. There have already been characters in game that it takes an HRPT or some 'staff animation' to kill down because they are bad ass. It is not like staff will not review special cases and work with you already.

You think a year or two IG is a long time? No. You think your character is mastering something in that time? That's not remotely realistic. I think it's unrealistic to be mastering things within 1-2 years IG.

What assumption are you working off of that makes you think there are only a couple players reaching this point quickly and constantly? Do you think if this was a trend staff might become involved with that player exploiting their knowledge?

I am not concerned with the fact that my character will probably never master a skill 100%, i'm not playing Skyrim.

[Armaddict]

I don't know if America is raising 'sensitive wussies' but I feel like the GDB is. My comment was a joke: I've been seeing discussions like this for over a decade now. I am traditionally not opposed to this discussion.

The more I read into though, the more I am on the side of not touching it at all. I'm seeing a lot of people (and this is a general trend more and more accepted as I see it) really just worried about code and their ability to boost it. Why? What roleplay comes from that?

At what point have you played a character in armageddon, that deserved a higher proficiency than you had so much it affected your RP? Even as a Jihaen I wasn't hitting max stats and I probably spent 60-70% of my time sparring in a tower. There have already been characters in game that it takes an HRPT or some 'staff animation' to kill down because they are bad ass. It is not like staff will not review special cases and work with you already.

You think a year or two IG is a long time? No. You think your character is mastering something in that time? That's not remotely realistic. I think it's unrealistic to be mastering things within 1-2 years IG.

What assumption are you working off of that makes you think there are only a couple players reaching this point quickly and constantly? Do you think if this was a trend staff might become involved with that player exploiting their knowledge?

I am not concerned with the fact that my character will probably never master a skill 100%, i'm not playing Skyrim.

That was my original point.  If you're not getting any more badass because you're a badass...*does the meh shrug*.

[Aruven]

I don't know if America is raising 'sensitive wussies' but I feel like the GDB is. My comment was a joke: I've been seeing discussions like this for over a decade now. I am traditionally not opposed to this discussion.

The more I read into though, the more I am on the side of not touching it at all. I'm seeing a lot of people (and this is a general trend more and more accepted as I see it) really just worried about code and their ability to boost it. Why? What roleplay comes from that?

At what point have you played a character in armageddon, that deserved a higher proficiency than you had so much it affected your RP? Even as a Jihaen I wasn't hitting max stats and I probably spent 60-70% of my time sparring in a tower. There have already been characters in game that it takes an HRPT or some 'staff animation' to kill down because they are bad ass. It is not like staff will not review special cases and work with you already.

You think a year or two IG is a long time? No. You think your character is mastering something in that time? That's not remotely realistic. I think it's unrealistic to be mastering things within 1-2 years IG.

What assumption are you working off of that makes you think there are only a couple players reaching this point quickly and constantly? Do you think if this was a trend staff might become involved with that player exploiting their knowledge?

I am not concerned with the fact that my character will probably never master a skill 100%, i'm not playing Skyrim.

That was my original point.  If you're not getting any more badass because you're a badass...*does the meh shrug*.

With you bud.

I'm not sure where the sudden focus on code in this game came from but I remember not even being able to see your skills.

[Is Friday]

It's a MUD, not a MUSH.

[Armaddict]

It's a MUD, not a MUSH.

Which essentially says it's less freeform and more coded.  I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

[RogueGunslinger]

Yes, it does change things.  Drastically.

Journeyman to master is the difference between you escaping after a couple of hits versus being reel-locked and 3-shotted by back-to-back-to-back head and neck shots.  By a dude with average strength.

To say the difference in 2/5ths of a single skills progression is to suddenly go from landing high dmg head/neck shots every once in a while to consistently getting them back to back sounds like hyperbole. I'm pretty sure both offense and weapon style as well as stats affect that quite a bit.

Even still my point was that that the warrior should be destroying melee competition regardless of a 20% boost to one skill.


Also, this mush/mud, realism/playability, wussies/badasses debate is stupid as hell. If you don't like the discussion go bury your head in the sand.

[Clearsighted]

I don't know if America is raising 'sensitive wussies' but I feel like the GDB is. My comment was a joke: I've been seeing discussions like this for over a decade now. I am traditionally not opposed to this discussion.

The more I read into though, the more I am on the side of not touching it at all. I'm seeing a lot of people (and this is a general trend more and more accepted as I see it) really just worried about code and their ability to boost it. Why? What roleplay comes from that?

At what point have you played a character in armageddon, that deserved a higher proficiency than you had so much it affected your RP? Even as a Jihaen I wasn't hitting max stats and I probably spent 60-70% of my time sparring in a tower. There have already been characters in game that it takes an HRPT or some 'staff animation' to kill down because they are bad ass. It is not like staff will not review special cases and work with you already.

You think a year or two IG is a long time? No. You think your character is mastering something in that time? That's not remotely realistic. I think it's unrealistic to be mastering things within 1-2 years IG.

What assumption are you working off of that makes you think there are only a couple players reaching this point quickly and constantly? Do you think if this was a trend staff might become involved with that player exploiting their knowledge?

I am not concerned with the fact that my character will probably never master a skill 100%, i'm not playing Skyrim.

Personally, I am starting to get bored of the fact that people only trot out this highly elaborate reasoning where weapon skills are concerned, and don't care about how easy is to max/branch other, far more powerful skills in the game.

It's also interesting that so many people would rather keep tiny, weak, fast creatures as the best critters to become better fighters against, but think the game would somehow break or overtly benefit newbies if say, fighting rantarri or kryl was more beneficial.

That tells me right away they are probably less concerned about balance (which is a complete red herring, as combat skill advancement can still be tweaked to unfairly benefit veterans while being more logical at the same time), and more concerned about themselves having to fight appropriately threatening critters on the risk/reward scale.

[Riev]

It's a MUD, not a MUSH.

Which essentially says it's less freeform and more coded.  I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

"More Coded" meaning that a huge majority of the things you do are coded actions, and the determined "winner" is by a set of skills and dice rolls. If it were a MUSH then it would make sense to just "emote is awesome at slashing skills!". While I don't think there is much that needs to change, I do admit that having a set of "Advanced" skills that are nigh impossible to reach, and when you DO reach them they are (relatively) useless to you, then I think there is a problem.

I don't have a problem with being badass, I have a problem with "I want to be a guy that uses a single knife-weapon in Close Quarters Combat, but to do that I need to master swordsmanship, and then I won't -ever- be a master in CQC Knife weapons because of code". There ARE legitimate reasons to want the code a little easier, more than "I want to be a badass".

[Aruven]

The 'highly elaborate reason' that this game emphasizes roleplay as opposed to coded skills?

Why not try requesting a skill bump when you feel you have leveled out and your roleplay merits a boost to those skills? Maybe your roleplay that your superiors just weren't the best when they trained you. Maybe you roleplay that its particularly difficult to learn something: Because it probably is.

I guess I haven't ever played a character long enough to really have a serious complaint, because if I needed it the avenues to get what I needed already exist.

Also, I am not above discussing ways to improve the code. I am above discussing ways to make power-gaming easier by exploiting the code.

[Armaddict]

Stabbing weapons aren't knives?