Code idea for skillups

[Beethoven]

I want to start off by saying I'm not a coder and I have never seen the Armageddon code, nor the real nitty-gritty of any MUD, whether DIKU or other. So I am well aware that I'm coming from a place of ignorance and may be (i.e. probably am) spouting nonsense.

The "skill up by failing" system has been discussed and criticized many times. It seems like a lot of people would like it if there was a small chance to skill up on success, so that people don't go around doing ridiculous things to achieve fails. However, it seems to be understood that such a change would require a full overhaul of the skill system, and perhaps other systems that are connected to it, and it'd just be a big mess that'd be a massive amount of work and would probably break everything forever and then wouldn't we be sorry. Now, maybe with my idea we'd still end up in the same place, but I thought I'd propose it and maybe someone with more knowledge of coding could pick it apart/improve it/laugh at it.

We know there are two categories of fails based on the range your roll falls in: regular and critical. I propose a third category of "fail" that is treated as a fail by the skill-up code, but actually produces a success. For the purposes of this proposal I'll call it a "false fail." It could be a slim range at the high end of success in order to encourage people to do their best, but people who can see the code would probably know what range would be ideal. You would not know when you achieve a false fail, but there would be a chance of skilling up based on your wisdom.

I know this would probably also be a really big unwieldy deal to code, but I wondered if players/staff had thought of it before and whether it might be more tackleable some day in the unforeseen future than a pure "chance to skill up on success" system. Thoughts?

[palomar]

Is the general opinion that all skill progress (except spells) is too slow/difficult? In my experience, most skills advance without too much trouble - and some are incredibly fast. The exception would be weapon skills and some combat skills. I personally don't see a need to boost improvement rate on most mundane skills, but it would be great if a few of the combat skills were boosted a bit, and that not only dodges count as skill check fails in regards to weapons.

Edit: I think there are actually some skills that use a kind of false fails, but I'm not sure.

[Beethoven]

I think that skills go up reasonably fast, as well, and I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that the wisdom changes have really helped. I personally just dislike that if I'm trying to practice a skill, there's a coded discouragement from using tools and doing other things that would ensure optimal performance. I still usually use the tools that make sense to use and try to be patient, but when I get in a skill lull I have been known to use knives for hide-scraping and other things like that, which I don't like that I'm tempted to do. This would really help encourage better skill practice RP in my opinion.

You could probably do some things to tweak the ranges so that skills wouldn't suddenly go up a lot faster with this change. Maybe if it's not too much, another slim range of failure, cosmetically indistinguishable from a normal failure, that DOESN'T have a chance of success, could be added to balance things out. However it's handled, though, this would still definitely help with the really slow ones like weapons skills.

EDIT: Just saw your edit. If that's true -- and I think it might be and I've just half-forgotten because it sounds right -- that's really good. That means something like this might very well be feasible, although definitely a long-term project. Of course, it's not really my place to decide what's feasible or not, but it's still encouraging.

EDIT THE SECOND: As far as only dodges counting as failures for the sake of weapon skill gains, Nergal denies that that's true. That said, a lot of veteran players vocally disagreed with Nergal and claimed that their personal experiences didn't match up with what he was saying. I've personally never manually gotten a weapon skill past apprentice as far as I can remember, so I'm not the one to say whether it's true or not, but I did want to point that out.

[palomar]

For some skills I'd say it's not really the lack of failure once you get good enough that's the problem. The problem is that you need the fails to branch. The merchant guild is a good example of that, because you need to branch the starting skills to get access to other crafting skills you desire. Other guilds have similar issues but in regards to fewer skills, generally. I hope branching levels will be part of the guild overhaul.

[Beethoven]

Yeah, a lot of the pursuit of gains is done for the sake of branching, and branching is its own bag of worms. I don't like branching as a general rule. In some cases it makes sense, but not most.

But just to emphasize once again, I'm not suggesting this idea because I think skill gains are, in general, too slow. I'm suggesting this because I have seen people do very silly things in order to achieve fails and skill up faster, and have been tempted to do those silly things myself. If you don't think this is a problem, that's valid, but I'm not a big fan. I know that skill up on failure slows down skill gain as you get better, and I think that's a positive, but in my experience it does cause people to engage in absurd behaviors.

[Lizzie]

I think it's really not the code that's a problem, but more that the code and player availability is the problem, when combined. Players who can play a few hours every day can do a variety of things with their play time. They can practice a little, then spend their "wait time" roleplaying at the bar, or going out for a ride, or plot/scheme with their boss/minions, etc. etc. People who only have an hour a day or only three days every RL week don't have that luxury, IF they want to become as competent as the regular player, in the same amount of time.

The problem as I see it is that if the code were to be made more accommodating to players who play less often, then players who play more often will still be "ahead" because it just gives THEM more of a skillboost when THEY play as well. There's really no way to boost skill increases for less-often play, that won't also increase for more-often play, and worse - it'll increase for more-often play, more often, thus widening the gap even further.

I feel this is -only- a problem at all, if you're the type of player who puts "keeping up with the other guy codedly" at a priority in your game play. For everyone else, I don't think it's a problem at all.

[Beethoven]

At the risk of sounding brusque--for the third time, this idea isn't intended to make skill gains faster.  I don't know how to make that more clear. I even suggested an idea that could possibly counterbalance most of the skillup-hastening effects of this proposed change.

[Raptor_Dan]

I was going to reply with a LOT because I thought I had something of value to input here, but, after thinking about it, I'm not entirely sure, so I'll summarize it:

My characters doesn't think about their skills getting better, and if they really needed them too, they'd hire some experts for training, thus, I really don't think about my skills getting better. I spent a good five or six years dying before I ever branched a skill, and branching one was like WHOA. I get so much enjoyment from this game without focusing on my skills, even though 'skills' is one of those commands like score, time, weather, stat, that I regularly check.

I prefer the idea of successes being used to raise your skills, because you learn from what you're doing right, up until you hit advanced, when I feel only then you have an appropriate foundation to learn from what you're doing wrong. I'm different than most, though. I can imagine most people would hate this way of doing things.

[Lizzie]

At the risk of sounding brusque--for the third time, this idea isn't intended to make skill gains faster.  I don't know how to make that more clear. I even suggested an idea that could possibly counterbalance most of the skillup-hastening effects of this proposed change.

Your idea would result in it being easier to skill up - which would make skill-ups faster. The easier it is to skill up, the faster that set of "people who want to be codedly better" will do so.

That is what I'm addressing, because it -is- a concern. Skillup by failure is only frustrating for people who either rarely fail at all, or who don't have time to play the waiting game between failures.

Keep in mind - this is a matter of logic: If you never fail at something - then you can't get better. You're as good as you can possibly be.

Also - branching doesn't rely on failure. Only improving your existing skill relies on failure. If you want to add more coded ability to improve based on success, and combine it with failure, then you are increasing the speed at which a player can improve. That means EVERYONE will increase the speed at which they can improve, and again - the people who play often will increase the speed of their improvement - faster than the people who can't play often. The gap will widen, and the complaints will be more profound.

[Beethoven]

But you didn't address the fact that I said you can mitigate that quite a bit by adding a range of failure that doesn't increase skill gain, thus narrowing the skill-gain-by-failure range and making skill gains by failure slower in order to balance out the added range that you can learn from.

And I took issue with your focus not because the quicker skill gain is not a legitimate criticism of my idea, but because you said that the ONLY reason someone would want something like this or see skill gain only by failure as a problem is because they want to be codedly better than the next guy, which is just utterly false.

But it looks like I was probably wrong about people wanting to see some amount of skill gain from success, so feel free to disregard and discard this idea.

[nauta]

But it looks like I was probably wrong about people wanting to see some amount of skill gain from success, so feel free to disregard and discard this idea.

I like the idea -- it's a big win for realism.

[Lizzie]

But it looks like I was probably wrong about people wanting to see some amount of skill gain from success, so feel free to disregard and discard this idea.

I like the idea -- it's a big win for realism.

So is mandatory bladder and bowel elimination, and I'm against that too.

[bardlyone]

But it looks like I was probably wrong about people wanting to see some amount of skill gain from success, so feel free to disregard and discard this idea.

I like the idea -- it's a big win for realism.

I like the idea as well. I think it would have an interesting effect on reversing the way skilling up currently works (re: the curve where before a certain point it seems all you do is fail then about 3 hours of active skill use later, it seems like all you do is win win win win win). But regardless of how that might effect anything else, I like it for the reasons raptor dan laid out about learning when you get something right and then having a solid foundation to draw from etc.

[Delirium]

While I want to see learning from success, I also don't want to see people hitting master at weapon skills from fighting chalton every day.

[Beethoven]

While I want to see learning from success, I also don't want to see people hitting master at weapon skills from fighting chalton every day.

That is the core problem, I guess. I don't know how my idea wouldn't lead to something like that without the kind of overhaul that I was specifically attempting to avoid.

[Zenith]

I really like this idea as well, and I'm missing how it would help people skill up faster. If you play all day and have to run out your skill timer, or if you play once every three days, either way you still have a timer you need to run down. I don't get the feeling that the idea is to make it easier to skill up, but to make it more reasonable to use tools. A crafter shouldn't have to ditch their tool and try to fail in order to hit master, for example.

[Clavis]

sparring = longer to skill up
hunting = faster skill up

[Riev]

While I would hope the "practice makes perfect" idea of skilling up might go in someday, I don't think adding in a random "fail that looks like a success" will work. It will make master swordsmen out of rat chasers, and it will remove some of the "I worked hard to get to where I am" feeling from other skills. It doesn't take that long to get to a "passable" level, and from that point on if you want to be a MASTER... well... prepare to devote a lot of time and resources, like any skill.

Nobody says you have to be a master at every skill you get as a merchant, other than the "I need to branch for that OTHER skill I REALLY want".

So, you say this isn't about making skills faster... then what WOULD be the point of skilling up on success? Just... that you COULD? I guess I don't understand the rationale behind wanting this.

[Beethoven]

I realize now that it would cause people to be able to master weapons skills by killing rats and chalton. It was dumb of me to miss that and the whole idea would never work. I thought I made it clear why I wanted this, but l will say it again anyway. I wanted to reduce the temptation to do silly things to get fails, like crafters not using tools and sneakies and combatants loading themselves down with rocks or whatever.

[Beethoven]

Obviously this was a dumb idea and I see that now. I'm pretty much content to let it die at this point.

[Riev]

The spirit, then, sounds like a great idea. I see the issue with crafters not using tools "for dem failz", because I once had a Merchant PC that had an unaccomplished goal of creating some unique tools, that would then be required to craft some cool end-game mastercraft-style stuff. Or even tools that were MADE to create other tools (one would HAVE to be a recursive knife). But I realized, as I'm sure you do, that nobody USES tools. There are now even crafts that require tools in hand, or in room, and tools DEGRADE in quality and everything. It just doesn't mean much, right now.

So, I agree with the spirit of it. Perhaps there is another way to encourage non-meta methods of getting those last mastery points?

[Kankman]

If successes allowed (more) of a chance for learning and the RL timer between increases remains the same, the result would be the learning curve would flatten out, rather than fast(er) learning at the early stages of a character's advancement, and slower as they became more skilled.

To counter that, the RL timer on skill increases could be increased, so the progression would remain flat, and advanced characters would advance at the same speed as novice characters, and we would end up at "master" in the same RL timeframe as we do now.

I personally like the idea of learning the basics of things relatively quickly, but then it being difficult to become a master. It is unfortunate that players are given the incentive to do silly things to increase chances of failure, but it's also not entirely an immersion breaker.

Imagine the gunslinger that's so damn good with those six-shooters that they not shoot at playing cards sideways.

That said, I'm all for going back to the days before you could see skill levels. I'd even support removing the 'skill' command entirely. The help files on your guild and subguild tell you what you can do. Go ahead and try it.

[Majikal]

I play diablo, I play path of exile, Rust, Ark, I play tons of rpg's and mmo's that are all about teh grindz, you could even say I enjoy it, love it, fucking LIVE for it. However I can support methods of more casual skill gain, not removing the grind (I doubt I'm the only one that enjoys it) but having something in place that allows minor skill gain over time to a certain level of competancy. With certain characters that I play I find it hard to run off and practice skills, particularly any leaders I have, luckily I play all hours of the day so I end up running off to play Skillup when less players are around and there's less player to player fun to be had. I can see how that might be difficult to juggle for the more casual players though.

In regards to needing to fail: I've never had to fill my pack with rocks and tried climbing cliffs, I've never battled aminals while dual wielding arrows cuz lol misses, the point being unless for some reason you worry about having to climb a cliff with a bag of rocks or fear your weapons breaking and need to master the art of arrow-stabbing... there's not really a coded reason for it. The logic of having your assassin who never misses his stabs needing to do silly things so that he does miss so that he can keep... not missing? Once your ninja/warrior requires stupid conditions to fail, congratulations, you are now competent, accept that you are competent and go start some fun.

[Beethoven]

I agree with you, Majikal, and I like to see things the same way. The problem is that a lot of people do try to maximize their chance of failure in silly ways. And then they have their characters act unconvincingly disappointed that they failed. Kind of like an "Oh, darn. "

[Riev]

I agree with you, Majikal, and I like to see things the same way. The problem is that a lot of people do try to maximize their chance of failure in silly ways. And then they have their characters act unconvincingly disappointed that they failed. Kind of like an "Oh, darn. "

HONESTLY, these people are few and far between, and while it can be a little discouraging, the occasional "really good at their skills" player is both interesting and necessary to be a tool for the people who need them.

Most times, I don't see players twinking up an Assassin that never misses, to go work for themselves. They're usually a tool for the leadership. Because if you AREN'T competent, the leadership doesn't give a shit.

[Jihelu]

You're either:
In the process of twinking
Dead
Or already a master.

[bardlyone]

I think if people just didn't have to grind up to max in X or Y skill to unlock the one which comes off it, it would eliminate a lot of why many people who have less than no use for skills for PVP tend to grind. For those people who are into PVP, I'd imagine that the vagaries of branching play a wholly different role, which I cannot speculate on with any personal experience, as I've been playing since the start of 2008 and pked 1 person in the damn-near decade of that time.

[Dresan]

I would love to see blindfolds for that blind fighting skill or at least a dark room in clans.

At the moment best way to train a weapon is to start with skill boosts. Just a shame it is limited to two instead of three.

I'm curious to see what the anti-grind idea the staff is coming up with though.

[nauta]

I would love to see blindfolds for that blind fighting skill or at least a dark room in clans.

I was just thinking about this today -- training blindfighting always feels weird to me, because... can't you just close your eyes?

[Raptor_Dan]

I'm curious to see what the anti-grind idea the staff is coming up with though.

Gith attacks during pre-dawn hours.

[Majikal]

I would love to see blindfolds for that blind fighting skill or at least a dark room in clans.

I was just thinking about this today -- training blindfighting always feels weird to me, because... can't you just close your eyes?

When you think of Blind Fighting, stop thinking about Daredevil ninja fighting in the dark. Trying to make blindfighting an ic training drill always seems silly to the max.

Dem swirling sands, ain't they blinding enough?

[Jihelu]

I don't think wanting to train blind fighting is silly from a coded perspective.
I think ic you're fucking stupid.
But if IC I know you are a great ass warrior and want to see how much stronger you can get while relying on your sense of touch and hearing as opposed to your eyes, to help build reaction time and what not, fuck why not?
It makes more sense with styles that use less offense, say shield. You get hit and you immediately parry/push out with your shield and strike with your weapon, trying to get into an unseen rhythm as opposed to just 'I see enemy I go attack'.



I've always felt you should be able to weigh your self down in combat as well. It's basically a trope on its own and used in shows and books and all sorts of stuff. That and you can make your self Rock Lee or something.

[Raptor_Dan]

Ugh, I hate thinking of code like this. Someone in another thread mentioned how binary things IC were, you're hidden, or you're not, you're crimflagged, or you're not, and in this case, you can see, or you can't, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Whatever happened to the 'great ass warrior' that wants to see how much stronger you can get while reyling on your sense of touch and hearing, to build reaction time and what not, going to wherever he can, rooftops, training hall, apartment, taking a scrap of cloth and wrapping it around his eyes, and just roleplaying doing this. Log it, and continue to build on it, and send those logs into staff?

Isn't that a thing we can do?

I know it's kind of frowned upon to let your ooc viewpoints of a char or player taint your IC motivations, but I do. A lot. When I play with someone who does this kind of thing, spars with people in the dark, sneaks everywhere, pointlessly and without emotes or hemotes, I get really tired of them, and come up with a reason for my PC to dislike or fear them and get away from them.

However, when I see people roleplaying out stuff like above, I do steer my char in their direction, and try my best to find IC motivation to do so.

[Hauwke]

You -could- rp having blindfolded yourself sure, but it wouldnt incur any penalty and you would codedly be that same badass dude. As much as I respect someone wanting to rp it out the code has to support sucjing at anything where the code is involved, ie blind fighting. It makes you miss because you cant see. If you rp it you are still hitting regardless, since there is no penalty.

It would be nice to have a command to blind fold someone though... hmmmmm........