Overly Concerned with Skills?

[Armaddict]

Eh, I think Synthesis understands me well enough.

He's basically poking at me for trying to make a blanket solution to a problem that is literally as old as we've both played the game and longer.  Moreso I'm just trying to stepping stone (back) in the right direction by my opinion and outlook, though, with some modifications.  But neither of us ever truly convince the other one when we have a difference of personal view on things, though, so we could do this all day!

I think I've reiterated my position enough on the thread for now, I won't keep blabbing on it.  Think we got some good things to think about and points and counterpoints investigated by other minds, though.

[bardlyone]

Armaddict:

I feel like a lot of your arguments toward rolling back skills being visible are the same sort of arguments that someone who is straight and just doesn't like 'the gays' getting married would use.

'It's a step in the wrong direction' - for who - people who don't care about seeing them and don't want to see them?

'It just encourages behavior I don't like' (skillgrinding/twinking) - really, because before people could see them they didn't do insane things for the exact same reasons? Ask synthesis - he did the exact same shit he's doing to max now, before he could see he was maxed. And for the exact same reasons. If it is a behavior that you don't engage in it, you're not going to engage in it.

If it's a behavior you only engage in 'when it's possible to see it's bearing fruit' - that's on you to turn off skills display if you don't want to see it. Because the people who behave that way no matter what aren't changing when this goes away. They're just doing it FOREVER now, because they can't ever SEE that they're maxed and it might still yield gains.

If you don't want to see your progress, well, frankly, don't look. Just because you can see it doesn't mean you should look if looking makes you unhappy. Don't project the norms of your behavior ('if I couldn't see them, I wouldn't grind for that point') on other people. Some people will always grind (synthesis), some people will never grind (raptor_dan).

I think it would be unreasonable to kill something most people find useful and sometimes even enjoy, because you don't want to see it, when you can ALREADY turn it off. You want to take away other people's ability to enjoy what makes THEM happy, because you think it's wrong. And that is crap.

I love the hell out of you, but I will never agree with you on this point, and I think most people feel the same.

[Reiloth]

I think that's an extreme analogy.

Armaddict and Code Guru are just having a healthy debate. I don't think we need to label them as bigots?

[Miradus]

Yeah, bringing in that sort of real world politico/cultural thing feels like you're trying to shame someone into shutting up.

It's an argument about a game. It's not even rude. It's interesting, enlightening, and impassioned. Arm is a fun and interesting hobby and I enjoy good and meaty discussions on it.

Even when I think Armaddict is a big poo-poohead for disagreeing with me.

[Reiloth]

It sounds like some people just want a different MUD. Making changes like some proposed is a slippery slope. This isn't a H&S. This is a unique MUD in many ways - let's not go changing that.
If you want something more grindy and skill-centric, check out TMS. If you want the experience that IS Armageddon don't try to change it into something that it has never been.

RP. Enjoy the RP. Stop doing silly crap just to "skill up". Stop being so concerned about how things work. Stop trying to win. Stop trying to capitalize on the code. Play your character in a realistic way and you |will| experience what Armageddon is all about.

Some of the game mechanics discussed here has made me cringe - when did we get to this point?

This is an attitude we (as veterans) need to consider wisely before we begin repeating it wholesale.

No, ArmageddonMUD isn't the same game it was in 1998, 2004, 2008, or even 2015. The game is evolving, changing, as the player base ages and changes. Many people who once played the game don't anymore, for reasons as simple as life passed them by, and they don't have the time, or they just aren't interested anymore.

Video game culture on a whole has also changed. When I first started playing ArmageddonMUD, there were a slew of other RP-enforced or RP-encouraged MUDs and MOOs and MUSHs with competing player bases. They're all extinct now. The MMORPGs and CRPGs and other sorts of games and consoles just swallowed people's interests in text-based gaming.

So -- We should really carefully consider before we tell people "This game isn't for you, try something else". We may start finding that we are one of those soon-to-be-extinguished RPI MUDs of yore.

The solution that I see here requires figuring out why people are skill-centric, and if/how that harms the game's RP environment. Comparing the game environment of 2016 to any sort of aggrandized memory of the past 'good ol' days' of ArmageddonMUD is like remembering how good sex was with your high-school girlfriend. Just as with that girlfriend, the 'good ol days' ain't coming back any time soon. Even if they did, they wouldn't look the same, would they? Most of the people we played with in the 'good ol days' don't play anymore, aren't around, aren't interested in ArmageddonMUD. You can't change the past, you can't make the past the present, and we certainly aren't going to predict the future.

So -- As a rebuttal to your question -- How do you see us as a community reconciling with newer players that come from games that aren't archaic about how code is presented to the player base? How do we encourage them to put RP first? How can we possibly modify how skills are gained or trained in order to facilitate RP over skill grinding?

These are the kinds of things I find to be helpful questions. I hate to say it, but telling people to go play a different game will only yield one result -- They take you up on the offer and don't play ArmageddonMUD. How does that help us?

Sure, the game isn't for everyone. People figure that out and stop playing, or never get started. But it's a crap message for a Veteran to send to new players. I've done it myself, but I really think we should stop it, collectively. It's a MUD, not a MUSH. This means that RP, especially on an RPI, is incredibly important, but skills are not to be ignored and completely disregarded. It's a part of the game -- And just because you play the game one way, doesn't delegitimize the way that other people play it as well.

Just because I think it got page rolled by the debate between Armaddict and Synthesis.

I think it's important to note that this is the environment of the game. We are the players of the game. Until the paradigm shifts away from needing skilled, talented people to commit to and execute plots, there won't be a de-emphasis on the grind, especially where combat roles are concerned.

If you could create a character, and they could immediately become a de-virtualized asset (as in they are a mildly talented warrior, or a pretty good assassin), you might find people are less attached to their PC, because they didn't pour in literally days of their life to achieve some modicum of success. It's a human instinct, one that's very difficult to detach from. You, the player, don't want to put your PC into a situation that will possibly get them killed. That's the first instinct. It takes time and training to take a breath and go 'Well, this is what would make sense' and have them still do it. Sometimes you've been playing the PC for so long, it's a relief when they get killed, but most of the time (For me) I knowingly do something my PC doesn't know will kill them or put them in a dangerous situation.

So...For me -- If I could jump into a moderately talented PC and avoid the early-stage grind, I would be much more productive in the RP sense. I wouldn't even care about being a 'master' at every skill or even important skills to my PC. Starting at novice in pretty much every category (even skills that are crucial to the guild, even starting lower than subguilds in the same vein) is a detriment to the RP quality of the game.

Things like automated skill bumps would go a long way in alleviating early-stage grind. What Synthesis and Armaddict are talking about is esoteric end-game skill grind for warriors -- Which I an attest is not only meta-gamey to the max (you need to find the right creatures to fight), but has no nuance. A 'Fail Gain' system is antiquated and only serves the grind, not the RP. Even if you gained 1/8 of a point in a skill from a success, I think you would see a marked difference in how people play their PCs.

[Miradus]

What I would like to see is a system of aging properly represented.

If I start at ~25 for a human then I have decent stats but crappy skills. I consider that normal.

But what if I don't want to play the plucky kid from the farm who knows nothing about the world? What if I want to start as old Ben Kenobi and I'm willing to take the stat hit for that advanced age?

Doesn't matter. I don't get any increased skills as a tradeoff to that age. Not automatically. I'd have to expend a special app and get skill bumps for that.

I don't like always playing young people, but the stat hit is too onerous for me to play a 50 year old right out of chargen and not get some bumped skills in return for that.

[bardlyone]

I think that's an extreme analogy.

Armaddict and Code Guru are just having a healthy debate. I don't think we need to label them as bigots?

I did not in any way mean to imply that Armaddict was a bigot. I meant to imply that 'I disagree with this arbitrarily and I don't like it, I can simply avoid it myself, but that's not enough, I don't want other people to have the ability to do this' is the exact mentality of everyone I've ever met who was opposed to gay marriage. Not because I wanted to imply he was a bigot, but because I thought if I could show him, in that framework (where I'm 99% sure he's totally on board with people being able to do what they want in that other scenario), he would see that taking the same attitude to other things is just as absurdist with those other things.

[Reiloth]

I think that's an extreme analogy.

Armaddict and Code Guru are just having a healthy debate. I don't think we need to label them as bigots?

I did not in any way mean to imply that Armaddict was a bigot. I meant to imply that 'I disagree with this arbitrarily and I don't like it, I can simply avoid it myself, but that's not enough, I don't want other people to have the ability to do this' is the exact mentality of everyone I've ever met who was opposed to gay marriage. Not because I wanted to imply he was a bigot, but because I thought if I could show him, in that framework (where I'm 99% sure he's totally on board with people being able to do what they want in that other scenario), he would see that taking the same attitude to other things is just as absurdist with those other things.

Comparing someone to basically a homophobe in order to support your argument does not make for a strong analogy to what was actually going on.

Saying someone is a homophobe in hyperbole in order to support your argument isn't very generous. Or relevant.

[Armaddict]

I don't mind the response.  A wise man's tools are analogies and puzzles.

But I think it should be noted that I never said this was how -I- was doing things, or how much I disliked it; I look at my skills list all the time long after they've mastered.  It's a habit.  People did that all the time before levels were showing too.  It's not like this removes skills from the game.

I was going much more into a analytical 'Well, what does this reinforce/give you, and in return for what?'  Since I've done the before and after, I actually know what it felt like before versus now.  Apparently me and Synthesis thought about it differently, so my responses were based on saying that he was kind of throwing everyone into a place of that change not even mattering, where I can pretty adamantly say: Yes.  It did change things, and yes, for many, this would change things.  For at least a portion of the playerbase, they only do strange things because they need the branch, or they see the non-mastery.  For at least a portion of the playerbase, not attempting anything despite reasonable success rates is a thing because they know they aren't to a level they approve of yet.

Likewise, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, yes, I can turn it off.  But this is not me discussing my personal preference.  This is a discussion on behavior of the playerbase as a whole.  This was a change that when it came, there were a lot of people saying 'Hey, just let it happen, we can always go back if it causes a problem', but by its nature, that doesn't cause a problem quickly.  Here we are, discussing actual events, and with people in their arguments against it actually repeating the evidence of it:  'Don't take it away, because I really like watching it go up."  I think you took the part of me saying I've been against this change since it happened to mean that it's a viewpoint of the game versus me, rather than me trying to be heard in what I think is best for the game.  Not for me.

Because the people who behave that way no matter what aren't changing when this goes away. They're just doing it FOREVER now, because they can't ever SEE that they're maxed and it might still yield gains.

That is, again, the entire point.  This is not a way to eliminate the behavior, and was never asserted as such.  It's a way of eliminating one of the side-incentives for the behavior that makes people not normally prone to the behavior...suddenly prone to the behavior.  I return to my elven sneak example earlier: Are you saying that if visibility were gone, and branching based on the skill had already occurred, someone who never failed would continue to twink out sneak 'just because'?  Because my experience, and my observation of other stealthies, says the opposite, so I will continue to disagree on that point.  There is only a relatively small portion of the playerbase that enjoys engaging in training of the activity just because.  Most at that point or before, move on to putting it to use in a more fun and beneficial way.

When it comes down to it, none of this is remotely similar to a bigot approach of analysis.  This was a discussion brought up as how it would impact things when it was put in.  Those effects that were 'prophesied' are literally the topic of this thread.  I've added in some of the other affects that were discussed.  I've searched a few times to try and find the thread where skill-visibility was added, but I can't find it.  I, as of yet, haven't had anything said in response to this other than 'But I like it', and 'It won't change it anyway', the latter of which I've challenged several times now, and now, with your post, 'This behavior is your problem, not ours'.  That's why it's hard for me to drop it.  But I'd done it, up until you directly went back to repeating things from earlier the thread in such a way as if I'd just not seen it that way.

The analogy -was- a twist, though.

Edit:  Also.  I've been the very opposite of arbitrary.  My position on this has been consistent for years, and even against self-interest since I am someone who directly benefits more than most from visibility of where I am in the spectrum with more knowledge of what rests about where in that spectrum.  Neither did I take my original stance based off of a coin flip.  Calling this arbitrary would infer that I'm making an exception to another stance for no reason other than I feel like it, or that I'm wildly inconsistent on the matter and prone to my current mood in that stance.

2nd Edit:  And even with that code knowledge, it should be noted it was said I'd still be able to tell where I was even with them invisible.  This is false, particularly with weapon skills.  I'd have to step outside of my training group for more than just a few fights to even start getting an idea.  I can't guess based off of a risk-free environment.

[Reiloth]

What I would like to see is a system of aging properly represented.

If I start at ~25 for a human then I have decent stats but crappy skills. I consider that normal.

But what if I don't want to play the plucky kid from the farm who knows nothing about the world? What if I want to start as old Ben Kenobi and I'm willing to take the stat hit for that advanced age?

Doesn't matter. I don't get any increased skills as a tradeoff to that age. Not automatically. I'd have to expend a special app and get skill bumps for that.

I don't like always playing young people, but the stat hit is too onerous for me to play a 50 year old right out of chargen and not get some bumped skills in return for that.

I've always liked the 'Choose your Own Adventure' type questions asked in Morrowind and some CRPGs that determine some skill bumps you have (or more complex things, like how factions treat you, in a game like Tyranny). It'd be cool to have those questions based off your guild/subguild choice, and moving stats/skills up and down based on those responses. Make every response have a +/-, so it isn't really about min/maxing.

[boog]

I totally want age related skill bumps.

I don't think that'd help me be skilled though... unless I'm gonna play an old crone.

[bardlyone]

I don't mind the response.  A wise man's tools are analogies and puzzles.
...
The analogy -was- a twist, though.

Thank you for getting that I didn't in any way mean to imply bigotry or something negative about you.

Frankly, I'll continue to be for seeing skill levels as long as it takes a merchant hitting 'master' level in a skill to 'mastercraft', because it means you don't have to turn in a bunch of requests every time you have a merchant pc to check on whether or not you can modify or make a new thing yet. Which means less work for staff, and less work for players who play merchant guild pcs often.

Like... for me, the combat, the stealth, all that other stuff has 0 to do with it. And if you didn't need to have a skill at X level to do a thing which requires requests, I wouldn't mind the idea of skill visibility disappearing, ESPECIALLY if you could branch earlier. As things are set up with on of the main no-karma staring guilds though, it would make more work for both staff and players to do that.  I like seeing skill levels, but it actually impedes your ability to function without more work on both sides, for merchant pcs if you take it away.

[Synthesis]

What I would like to see is a system of aging properly represented.

If I start at ~25 for a human then I have decent stats but crappy skills. I consider that normal.

But what if I don't want to play the plucky kid from the farm who knows nothing about the world? What if I want to start as old Ben Kenobi and I'm willing to take the stat hit for that advanced age?

Doesn't matter. I don't get any increased skills as a tradeoff to that age. Not automatically. I'd have to expend a special app and get skill bumps for that.

I don't like always playing young people, but the stat hit is too onerous for me to play a 50 year old right out of chargen and not get some bumped skills in return for that.

I've always liked the 'Choose your Own Adventure' type questions asked in Morrowind and some CRPGs that determine some skill bumps you have (or more complex things, like how factions treat you, in a game like Tyranny). It'd be cool to have those questions based off your guild/subguild choice, and moving stats/skills up and down based on those responses. Make every response have a +/-, so it isn't really about min/maxing.

Min/maxing by definition involves consideration of +/- tradeoffs.

That sort of setup would make the min/max game more interesting, though.

[Armaddict]

I am also in agreement that age-related skill/stat questions would be pretty awesome in chargen.

[The Lonely Hunter]

My intention was never to argue about having skill levels added nor did I imagine that the post would go on so long. I feel a need to apologies.

With that said, I like seeing skill levels. They let me know how I stand and I can adjust my skill-based activities to RP properly.

There was some great comments here and some really neat points of view. A lot of people pretty much just confirmed that they are indeed overly concerned with skills and that it leads them to doing silly things that they may or may not realize are silly. I don't think that removing the ability to see skills is the answer - the answer is to just stop being silly. Stop obsessing. Play your character as your character would act, not because you want to get that next skill bump or branch some particular skill.

Thanks for contributing, I am grateful that you took the time to read and respond here! However, in all honesty if I could I would hit the "end" button on this thread I would. Good discussion but people are starting to argue through a privacy fence and are just growing repetitive.

[Armaddict]

Yeaah, sorry, that was why I said I needed to drop.

IT'S HARD FOR ME TO NOT ARGUE ON THE INTERNET, OKAY?!

Edited to add:  For a good reason, too.  I'm pretty sure I've momentously changed like 0 lives over 20 years doing it and gotten maybe 3 point of views changed.  *serious nod*  We got all set up on a track just because I agree that skill-orientation has taken a very weird turn.  It isn't that anyone is roleplaying poorly, that was never my intention.  We're all pretty baller here, despite our little clashes of story-based progression vs character-based progression.

[Jingo]

I'm still upset that staff changed the rules for skill boosts.

[Dunetrade55]

Are you saying that if visibility were gone, and branching based on the skill had already occurred, someone who never failed would continue to twink out sneak 'just because'? 

Ahem ahem... (actually as an elf with high agi getting sneak past novice/apprentice can be an exceedingly difficult task, getting it to a certain point can be nigh impossible once you hit that SPOT, you can either, live off your crafting subguild until you age your agi to pieces in say, 30-40 IG years and give up on portions of your main guild, or resort to seemingly unrealistic behavior, although there are ways to make it ICly legit)

Anyway, THIS is one of the BIG reasons I'd like to see branching levels lowered.

Also I didn't find Bardlyone's analogy out of place at all. In no way was she saying: You're a homophobe because you don't like visible skill levels. She was saying, there are similarities between these kinds of logic. It would be the similar to a dictator banning other kinds of ice cream, because he absolutely LOVES chocolate and demands the populace agree with him. Sorry bub, I believe mint chocolate chip is the only one worth enjoying! VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

[Reiloth]

The game definitely changed when visibility went in. I don't think it will change if we go back.

[Jingo]

Are you saying that if visibility were gone, and branching based on the skill had already occurred, someone who never failed would continue to twink out sneak 'just because'? 

Ahem ahem... (actually as an elf with high agi getting sneak past novice/apprentice can be an exceedingly difficult task, getting it to a certain point can be nigh impossible once you hit that SPOT, you can either, live off your crafting subguild until you age your agi to pieces in say, 30-40 IG years and give up on portions of your main guild, or resort to seemingly unrealistic behavior, although there are ways to make it ICly legit)

Anyway, THIS is one of the BIG reasons I'd like to see branching levels lowered.

Also I didn't find Bardlyone's analogy out of place at all. In no way was she saying: You're a homophobe because you don't like visible skill levels. She was saying, there are similarities between these kinds of logic. It would be the similar to a dictator banning other kinds of ice cream, because he absolutely LOVES chocolate and demands the populace agree with him. Sorry bub, I believe mint chocolate chip is the only one worth enjoying! VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

I can confirm that sneak and hide get hard to branch with high agility. I had a long-lived assassin that branched at 40 days. I hit advanced at 10 days and used it so much that I had thought I was at max.

[Synthesis]

I've never had any sort of difficult time branching from sneak/hide...not sure what you're doing, but they've always followed the same 5-7 day rule as other skills, regardless of race (my c-elves and d-elves tend to branch faster, actually).

[Armaddict]

I've never had any sort of difficult time branching from sneak/hide...not sure what you're doing, but they've always followed the same 5-7 day rule as other skills, regardless of race (my c-elves and d-elves tend to branch faster, actually).

My last one I had to send in a request after 12 days of playtime.

[Jingo]

I've never had any sort of difficult time branching from sneak/hide...not sure what you're doing, but they've always followed the same 5-7 day rule as other skills, regardless of race (my c-elves and d-elves tend to branch faster, actually).

I'm not sure either. I literally thought I was maxed. Max scan rangers were not noticing me and I wasn't afraid of avoiding people in public space.

[Reiloth]

I've never had any sort of difficult time branching from sneak/hide...not sure what you're doing, but they've always followed the same 5-7 day rule as other skills, regardless of race (my c-elves and d-elves tend to branch faster, actually).

Just from a game design standpoint...Thinking that I have to put in 120-168 hours of played time (obviously, not all of this is done 'gittin guud') to be mildly competent in skills that are the bread and butter of my class is sort of absurd. I wish there were a solution that appeased both the achievement part of my playstyle, the getting involved with plots with competent PCs, and the RPI intensity I enjoy.

I'd personally like to be able to choose skill bumps at chargen, or not be limited to 3 skill bumps via Special Application. The original purpose behind skill bumps was to allow the casual player to get a boost to their PCs before they went in game, with the express purpose of avoiding some of the early-stage grind that older, casual players may not have to commit to the game. This was so they could jump out of the box into plots with decently alright PCs.

Now, we're back to where we started. We have to commit to a PC with a special application, wait for the special application to be approved, set up a time with Admins to get the measly 3 skill bumps, and then...Our PC isn't really all that much better than an out of the box PC.

Bums me out. I know it's a lot of paperwork for Staff to do it the other way, but it's sort of a draconian rollback we're dealing with now.

[Jingo]

I've never had any sort of difficult time branching from sneak/hide...not sure what you're doing, but they've always followed the same 5-7 day rule as other skills, regardless of race (my c-elves and d-elves tend to branch faster, actually).

Just from a game design standpoint...Thinking that I have to put in 120-168 hours of played time (obviously, not all of this is done 'gittin guud') to be mildly competent in skills that are the bread and butter of my class is sort of absurd. I wish there were a solution that appeased both the achievement part of my playstyle, the getting involved with plots with competent PCs, and the RPI intensity I enjoy.

I'd personally like to be able to choose skill bumps at chargen, or not be limited to 3 skill bumps via Special Application. The original purpose behind skill bumps was to allow the casual player to get a boost to their PCs before they went in game, with the express purpose of avoiding some of the early-stage grind that older, casual players may not have to commit to the game. This was so they could jump out of the box into plots with decently alright PCs.

Now, we're back to where we started. We have to commit to a PC with a special application, wait for the special application to be approved, set up a time with Admins to get the measly 3 skill bumps, and then...Our PC isn't really all that much better than an out of the box PC.

Bums me out. I know it's a lot of paperwork for Staff to do it the other way, but it's sort of a draconian rollback we're dealing with now.

#givebackourbumps