Idea: New skill grade "Grand Master", and some more stuff.

[Reiloth]

Hello,

What if skills could go beyond master by a few points so that the range allowed for 'Beyond Master', or "Grand Master"?

What if the possibility of gaining this 'grand mastery' was figured out at character inception (rolled randomly, or perhaps chosen) as a potential for the PC? You can choose one skill, and you might (one day) become a 'Grand Master' in this skill. This doesn't mean you will succeed more often, but it does mean you have an edge over similarly skilled people in end game combat and skill vs skill checks (psionics, stealth, and so on).

What if you could choose one skill to start at advanced, three skills to start at journeyman, and two skills to start at apprentice? Eliminate the 'karma' aspect to skill bumps entirely, and just let people play well-rounded PCs from the beginning.

To avoid being OP from the get-go, perhaps limit which skills can be picked for advanced to start. Or maybe not, maybe that will actually make it more conflict-inducing to have an assassin with high backstab (and low everything else including combat skills) out in the political mix.

Thoughts?

[bardlyone]

I like it. All of it.

[Delirium]

Not gonna lie, I'd pick weapon skills, every time.

[Riev]

I'd pick weapon skills because duh.

Also, if it was randomized, I just KNOW I'd be the one with the potential to Grand Master Value.

[Reiloth]

Not gonna lie, I'd pick weapon skills, every time.

Yeah, i'm wondering if there's some metric so it could be like 'You can pick only one weapon skill, and only up to jman' or something like that. Or not! Not having Offense or Defense above starting numbers (and being unable to adjust them) still gives people who have been around/actually experienced fighters or whatever have an edge.

I like the idea of a hawk-eye (Grand Master Scanner) or a legendary sneaker stinker. Dunno. Just a thought I had!

[Patuk]

No.

[Reiloth]

No.

So verbose, Patuk.

[Patuk]

Your ideas as of late just seem kind of bad. Character creation already has a massive imbalance in the way stats are generated; adding randomisation to skills, not to mention giving more power still to those who have karma, is a terrible idea.

[Reiloth]

Your ideas as of late just seem kind of bad. Character creation already has a massive imbalance in the way stats are generated; adding randomisation to skills, not to mention giving more power still to those who have karma, is a terrible idea.

Well, at least I have the imagination and courage to post my ideas, rather than troll people with simple "No" answers, that require basically no forethought or counter-argument capability.

We're all entitled to butts and opinions though, so you're in your right to disagree with me (and my terrible ideas).

Here's a question: Do we change things by complaining about them, or by suggesting ways of changing them? For instance, you seem to think character creation is flawed, but instead of offering a potential solution, you simply admit it's 'flawed' and claim it is imbalanced. And you are (I suppose) alright with that.

If you read my post, I actually said 'Taking Karma out of the equation'.

[bardlyone]

I don't know what you're talking about Patuk, he actually mentions NOT tying it to karma. I like the notion that sometimes people are just savants at something with the chance to be better at them than anyone else and that it really is sheerly chance/happenstance/random. Sure it's not random witchery, which I've always been behind, but it still feels realistic and interesting.

[Riev]

Here's a question: Do we change things by complaining about them, or by suggesting ways of changing them? For instance, you seem to think character creation is flawed, but instead of offering a potential solution, you simply admit it's 'flawed' and claim it is imbalanced. And you are (I suppose) alright with that.

You're better than that, Paris.

People cannot be both entitled to their opinions, and not entitled to express their opinions.

I don't think its a good addition to this game. Possibly other games, but this one is supposed to be about the roleplay, not the grand master (or so I'm told, I still want a slashing fail). Perhaps more room for "random" skills to be added might be interesting, but hard to control for (assassin suddenly gets non-apped for master archery?).

I just don't think it'd work. You could ask staff if, at Master, to go through some IC training to raise your cap a couple points but I bet they'll say no.

[Reiloth]

Here's a question: Do we change things by complaining about them, or by suggesting ways of changing them? For instance, you seem to think character creation is flawed, but instead of offering a potential solution, you simply admit it's 'flawed' and claim it is imbalanced. And you are (I suppose) alright with that.

You're better than that, Paris.

People cannot be both entitled to their opinions, and not entitled to express their opinions.

I don't think its a good addition to this game. Possibly other games, but this one is supposed to be about the roleplay, not the grand master (or so I'm told, I still want a slashing fail). Perhaps more room for "random" skills to be added might be interesting, but hard to control for (assassin suddenly gets non-apped for master archery?).

I just don't think it'd work. You could ask staff if, at Master, to go through some IC training to raise your cap a couple points but I bet they'll say no.

Better than what? It's not a very intense question at all. Do we change things by complaining about them, or by suggesting changes? Pretty simple. I think we change things by suggesting how to change them, rather than complaining about them ad nauseum.

As I said -- Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even Patuk to a 'No', but a 'No' isn't really going to get a very verbose response, will it? Yes, I guess. Maybe?

Your response is much more thoughtful, and actually provides an opinion. That, I can get behind and cherish (and actually respond to).

While this game is about the roleplay, I am attempting to address much of the malaise expressed in other threads recently, of how to get people into the action and plots rather than into the grind.

I think there could be parameters to this (just as there are to any addition to the game), but I don't think Guilds would get non-branched, non-class random skills or random potential. It would be within their current skillset guild/subguild.

[bardlyone]

I also want to point out that like (and you are actually bad about this with me Reiloth, but it's unfair when anyone does it to anyone), it seems like the party of 'no' is reading shit into the post that it doesn't say.

It doesn't say you start with it that level but that it's figured on if it can cap at that level.

It also doesn't say it'd be tied to karma.

Like... I wish people would respond to what is actually said, instead of random stuff they read into things.

The possibility of starting out with a couple j-man and maybe an advanced skill at random without having had to have played for sometimes years and years? Awesome.

The possibility of someone being preternaturally good in a way that people can't 'git gud scrub' grind to, is awesome.

And the objections I've seen seem irrelevant since they're all rooted in stuff that is not actually being proposed.

[tortall]

The possibility of starting out with a couple j-man and maybe an advanced skill at random without having had to have played for sometimes years and years? Awesome.

The possibility of someone being preternaturally good in a way that people can't 'git gud scrub' grind to, is awesome.

Yep. Random awesome skills based on what your PC would already have. Maybe have a range that it could bump to? Like Apprentice to Advanced? Much like your stats get a random level, 1-2 of your skills could possibly have a random level. And if that random level got high enough to branch something, the first time it got bumped slightly you'd get that branch. But you wouldn't get non-branched skills.

I was going to give an example, but I know it would be an overshare in the past about code and branching stuff, so I'm just gonna leave it as is and someone who who hasn't been gone for 2-3 years can clarify. :-D

[Malifaxis]

No.

So verbose, Patuk.

Every time you post, Reiloth, I am happy to find we have more and more in common.  I as well sometimes apologize to inanimate objects when I take an unfortunate turn in a dark room and bump up against something unexpected. 

Personally, I love the idea, but fuck allowing it for combat skills.  I think you know my stance on combat upgrades... you had it in your quote for a while

Oh, and everyone who wants to take this for combat skills, you're a bunch of fucking twinks, and I love you all. 

[Riev]

Oh, and everyone who wants to take this for combat skills, you're a bunch of fucking twinks, and I love you all.

It is only when we have nothing to worry about, that we may truly die!

[boog]

Yeah, I'm in the no camp because it'd just be a gank festival. I'm cool with how it is. Just like I'm cool with ganking so long as it isn't just ganking because you can gank.

I actually prefer lower caps so people don't feel the need to grind to master and focus more on the RP or the collaboration to get to a skill level that is the very life essence of what this game should be.

I am in favor of random magicks and psi stuff given to characters with a really small percentage, though!

[Rokal]

I actually like this idea, really, I've thought of things extremely similar to this and just haven't had the time to get the concept into writing and voice them to the playerbase.

I personally don't think randomization of this is a bad thing, no matter where your random 'skills' go, you still wind up with something cool.

I just like to work it into RP. I would say even randomizing the things where your skills could start  at higher then starting levels.

A pickpocket that starts with their weapon skills already high? Just a naturally talented fighter for a pickpocket, or perhaps they had a history for it that you can improvise.

To me, random things are just another little thing that are a 'surprise' that allow one to improvise and create a better story with a character.

I am in favor of random magicks and psi stuff given to characters with a really small percentage, though!

I would absoutly love the bolded part, for reasons stated above the quote Someone having a small chance as manifesting as an elementalist.. would be cool.

[SuchDragonWow]

I played a game once that had skill talents for mundane and spell talents for casters.  In a random, unrevealed skill/spell, you are a degree better at it.  You eventually find out through performance.  You can't choose or change it, so if you're talented at create water, so be it.  I like the thought, it could add another dimension to a character.  It shouldn't be tied to karma, obviously.

[Hauwke]

I like the idea, it would give you the opportunity to have that one eagle eyed ranger who you just cannot hide from.

That one assassin who will truly disembowel you with a good knife to the lungs.

That one warrior who can actually shoot worth a shit.

That one burglar who can defend itself.

That one pickpocket who just cant be caught with his dextrous fingers.

That one merchant who can... Make bone swords better than any other merchant?

[BadSkeelz]

I disagree with the "Grand Master" skill idea. Combat skills take too long to level up, and have too much range of effectiveness as it is.

I think you would need to keep the "skill gap" between starting and established characters relatively narrow to increase risky behavior. If you push back the "end goal" people will just continue to chase it. You need to narrow the range entirely.

Giving players something more to grind for will just further the need to grind, no matter how competent a new PC is out of the box. People will look at it as needing that end-grind goal, so they can compete with others who have already achieved it.

[Reiloth]

I like the idea, it would give you the opportunity to have that one eagle eyed ranger who you just cannot hide from.

That one assassin who will truly disembowel you with a good knife to the lungs.

That one warrior who can actually shoot worth a shit.

That one burglar who can defend itself.

That one pickpocket who just cant be caught with his dextrous fingers.

That one merchant who can... Make bone swords better than any other merchant?

With your last example, the problem is the binary system where "Merchant Soandso crafts same bone sword as Merchant Dingdong". So there is no nuance to the craft, an unfortunate byproduct of the item database being what it is. In an ideal world, in a different code system, Merchant Soandso could make an 'Excellent Version of that Bone Sword', that does more damage or weighs less or has more embellishment in detail (allows you to append a 60 character tDesc to the weapon that sticks). Merchant Dingdong might be able to make the bone sword, but not as good as Soandso.

[Reiloth]

I disagree with the "Grand Master" skill idea. Combat skills take too long to level up, and have too much range of effectiveness as it is.

I think you would need to keep the "skill gap" between starting and established characters relatively narrow to increase risky behavior. If you push back the "end goal" people will just continue to chase it. You need to narrow the range entirely.

Giving players something more to grind for will just further the need to grind, no matter how competent a new PC is out of the box. People will look at it as needing that end-grind goal, so they can compete with others who have already achieved it.

I disagree (Though it's just a personal difference in opinion). I prefer to have a mildly competent PC, and don't really care to have the 'better than everyone else at <x>' PC. I think more competent PCs out of the box will be involved in more plots, because their employers will rightfully believe they can accomplish the tasks they set them out to do without literal years of training.

[bardlyone]

That one merchant who can... Make bone swords better than any other merchant?

Maybe they have eidetic memory for market values (GM value) or a silver tongue (GM haggle) or they have ears sharper than an elf (listen), or eyes as sharp as any ranger's (watch). There's stuff merchant's can do beyond crafting. It's just not combat.

[Hauwke]

Yeah I couldnt think of anything for merchant, I just couldnt

[bardlyone]

I disagree with the "Grand Master" skill idea. Combat skills take too long to level up, and have too much range of effectiveness as it is.

I think you would need to keep the "skill gap" between starting and established characters relatively narrow to increase risky behavior. If you push back the "end goal" people will just continue to chase it. You need to narrow the range entirely.

Giving players something more to grind for will just further the need to grind, no matter how competent a new PC is out of the box. People will look at it as needing that end-grind goal, so they can compete with others who have already achieved it.

I disagree (Though it's just a personal difference in opinion). I prefer to have a mildly competent PC, and don't really care to have the 'better than everyone else at <x>' PC. I think more competent PCs out of the box will be involved in more plots, because their employers will rightfully believe they can accomplish the tasks they set them out to do without literal years of training.

I thought the grand master aspect was to also be random, and if that's the case... that sort of invalidates the point about grinding further, I would think, as no one who doesn't have that potential could reach it ANYHOW, right?

[Reiloth]

I disagree with the "Grand Master" skill idea. Combat skills take too long to level up, and have too much range of effectiveness as it is.

I think you would need to keep the "skill gap" between starting and established characters relatively narrow to increase risky behavior. If you push back the "end goal" people will just continue to chase it. You need to narrow the range entirely.

Giving players something more to grind for will just further the need to grind, no matter how competent a new PC is out of the box. People will look at it as needing that end-grind goal, so they can compete with others who have already achieved it.

I disagree (Though it's just a personal difference in opinion). I prefer to have a mildly competent PC, and don't really care to have the 'better than everyone else at <x>' PC. I think more competent PCs out of the box will be involved in more plots, because their employers will rightfully believe they can accomplish the tasks they set them out to do without literal years of training.

I thought the grand master aspect was to also be random, and if that's the case... that sort of invalidates the point about grinding further, I would think, as no one who doesn't have that potential could reach it ANYHOW, right?

I mean I personally would like for it to be random, but I was assuming the playerbase would like to pick which skill they are grand-master in.

To balance things out, maybe you can also be 'grand fucktard' in a random skill. No matter how hard you try, you're just terrible at it.

I'm truly just an agent of Chaos.

[Patuk]

Well, at least I have the imagination and courage to post my ideas, rather than troll people with simple "No" answers, that require basically no forethought or counter-argument capability.

We're all entitled to butts and opinions though, so you're in your right to disagree with me (and my terrible ideas).

Here's a question: Do we change things by complaining about them, or by suggesting ways of changing them? For instance, you seem to think character creation is flawed, but instead of offering a potential solution, you simply admit it's 'flawed' and claim it is imbalanced. And you are (I suppose) alright with that.

If you read my post, I actually said 'Taking Karma out of the equation'.

Point taken on the karma thing. For playing a text-based game, I read terribly.

But really? You're allowed to bring forth your opinion on something, where I'm not? I don't owe a peer-reviewed thinkpiece every time I disagree with someone. Have you considered what this change of yours might do? Anything higher than master scan at its current level can invalidate any sneaky person not also at grandmaster. Grandmaster archery turns a ranger/delf into an even deadlier asshole than is already the case. Even skills like shield use and parry offer a very strong advantage over others. It's an immensely strong boost to any PC with boosts to such skills as opposed to craft skills, direction sense, or even just forage.

Your point about complaining is laughable, though. Complaining is bad.. So, you're going to complain. I do offer suggestions for making the game better, thank you. When staff asked me to make a request about it, I did that. When Taven sparked discussion on conflict, I talked there. When you came up with a terrible idea, my suggestion is 'no'.

[Reiloth]

Cool, thanks. Sorry for bumping into you in the dark.

[Hauwke]

I would love to play that one Byn fuckhead that is just so terribly hard to kill because he hides behind his shield better than anyone else, just saying.

(I would also like to wail on said guy just because he is a wussy and hides behind a shield so whatever.)

[solera]

I like the idea of wild cards too, particularly the magick one. I wonder what percentage of the players we are, compared with those that prefer planned stats.

[Miradus]

I don't like the thought of a superior skill being "random". If it's there, I want the ability to reach it.

If by practice and longevity beyond just master I have a chance of reaching it then awesome, but I don't want it hidden behind simple RNG.

I like the combat system. It's fun. It's risky. Just like some people like sitting in taverns or trying on fancy clothes, I like fighting things. I don't know why I feel the need to defend that sometimes when I read the forum.

[solera]

Both preferences are valid. I wonder if I prefer random because I prefer not to compete and lose.  I know that is why I have never chosen the warrior guild

[Lizzie]

I'd like its stellar opposite:

ALL non-magick, non-mindbender skills start at novice, for EVERYONE. Everyone starts at +1 on everything.

And then selected guilds get the bump to whatever those guilds normally start at, subguilds at what they normally start at, branches get whatever they start at, and end however they normally end.

But I feel everyone should be capable of holding a weapon and having a decent chance at surviving a fight against a rat. And everyone should be capable of TRYING to hide, and maybe even succeeding at it once in awhile. And everyone should be capable of attempting to pick a lock, though they'd typically fail, often critically - and sometimes they'd get lucky and succeed on a low-level lock.

Anything that doesn't normally come with your guild/subguild, would remain at +1 (or +10 or whatever is the starting novice numeric equivalent). Cooking, foraging - foraging for food would be included in this - you have to assume that ONCE IN AWHILE some shlub warrior/thug will find an edible tuber and pull it out of the ground.

The only people I feel "need" mastery in anything are people who have merchant/mastery-crafter-subguilds, so that they can submit their mastercrafts. Everyone else - doesn't need master anything at all, IMO and in my experience. Master skills are awesome and fun, but totally not necessary to play a viable anything OTHER than "character whose player wants to submit master crafts."

[Reiloth]

Wow, that's a game I don't want to play. Sounds like Everquest.

[nauta]

I'm not very sure I quite grokked Lizzie's post, but it did motivate me to post something that I've been thinking about after reading some recent threads, namely:

Make us all suck more.  That's the thesis.  Here's how it'd work out, with some motivation.  Non-combat skills would cap at low advanced (with some individual discretion for certain skills that are crucially non-fail and some exception to crafting skills).  Combat sills would cap at journeyman.  You'd move branches down accordingly.

Here's the motivation:

(1) PvE.  As mentioned elsewhere, once you achieve advanced or even high journeyman in your combat skills, there's very little that can hurt you out in the wilds, provided you are paying attention.  (Always bad luck cases.)  And I mean hurt you, period.  I'm not advocating more omidrov wut? moments and staring at the mantis head.  I would like to see more: ouch, flee! moments when moving through the deserts.  Basically, instead of making the mobs tougher, make us less tough.

(2) PvP works out to the same race to the top no matter where that top is: be it master, grand master, or apprentice.  However, there would be a kind of leveling-out effect here by eliminating advanced and master, that I think would be nice.

Ultimately, the motivation is that failing a skill, especially in combat situations, generates a lot more fun than never failing a skill, from RPing out your wound, to having a heart-thumping chase back to safety and a tent for the night, to the potential for more nuanced PvP combat, where arrows fly and some miss, some hit, to having to chase down or hire someone to get more ingredients for the craft you failed, to failing to skin the hide and having to go hunt another one, etc. etc.  We'd also be a lot more 'even' in terms of skills progression.

Anyway, it's a pie in the sky dream idea, but that's it.  There's 20 years or so of work tweaking the current system, so it's really a pie in the sky dream idea, hehe.

[Lizzie]

Wow, that's a game I don't want to play. Sounds like Everquest.

I've never played EQ or any other graphic game (other than King's Quest and Myst) so I don't understand the intention of your comment, at all.

However - just to clarify: I'm not suggesting people suck more.

I'm saying I don't see any need for mastery to be improved, because it's fine as is and is really only "necessary" if you want to master-craft something. You don't need to be a master archer to be a viable - or even decent - archer. You don't need to master piked weapons in order to be a kick-ass warrior. You don't even need to master all the spells on your spells list in order to be an awesome spellslinger. Sure it's great to have, but it's not necessary to be viable, or even kick-ass. And so - no improvement needed regarding mastery.

I would ALSO like to see everyone be capable of TRYING every non-magickal and non-psionic skill, without getting an error message saying they can't do that. I'd like to see everyone be capable of attempting to cut linen into bandages. I hate the "you can't do anything with this" message. Why can't you do anything with it, ever? Why is it not possible for you to EVENTUALLY - ONCE IN AWHILE - manage to rip a length of linen into a few strips, and call it "rudimentary bandage?" Why can't you make a loincloth out of a strip of leather or a strip of cloth? It involves NO sewing. None. At all. Everyone should be capable of doing it, eventually, once in awhile. Same for yanking a root out of the ground, and ripping a chunk of chitin off a scrab, and ducking behind a boulder, and shooting an arrow.

There should be the ability for everyone to _try_ all these skills, even if the chance of success is near zero.

[Reiloth]

That I can agree with 100%.

The Everquest comment means "starting out on rats, in the newbie zone" which is a gross over simplification of your post.

[Lizzie]

I'd also really LOVE it - I mean significantly profoundly adore it - if:

A character with less than 15HPs missing -

be capable of being bandaged by ANYONE. Even if they only have 1HP missing - the bandage skill should work. In fact, it should work more reliably, the fewer hps it has to restore. At 1HP, no one should ever miss, but everyone should be able to do it. Why? For the arr-pee. I've had to deal with people who restore hps naturally SO fast that I can't even get an emote out before they no longer have to be bandaged. And yet - they were just clobbered for 40hps in a single shot, less than 2 minutes ago. But because they crossed that ubiquitous threshhold, I get an error message when I try to wrap a length of gauze around their bloodied wrist. And then, I have to RP it out, and then I have to "junk" the scrap of cloth.

It'd be so much nicer if I could just "bandage amos" anyway and it'd use up that scrap of cloth, and either restore - or not restore - the last few hps the guy needs to be at 100%. Again - even if it didn't restore anything, I'd still like to be able to use that skill and have it use up the bandage and give some echo other than an error message.

[bardlyone]

Agree with you Liz, on the bandaging bit.

I hate that you have to be at such a small and specific threshold to be able to be bandaged even if you have the skill but only at starting levels. It is a source of massive frustration and really skewers mundane healer types.

[Kalden]

It would be cool if there was a random chance of getting some extra psionic skill or two, or a magick skill.

[azuriolinist]

+1 to that idea wherein each PC gets novice in every mundane skill, Lizzie. It should totally be possible for a PC to at least try. I've sometimes found it awkward to RP around the utter disability of my character to do things that weren't on their skill list.

As for the OP's post, I like the idea of getting boosts in certain skills from the get-go. The number of boosts, however, in my opinion, should be based around the PC's age. If it's not a given, the boosts chosen should probably be limited to guild/subguild skills.

I'm unsure about the idea of having a higher skill cap. Master in most skills is already pretty damn OP, from what I've seen, and would make some things (e.g. hide) unrealistically impenetrable. As long as grandmaster is incredibly hard to come by, maybe, but that might just lead to a ton of grinding.

[boog]

I'm not very sure I quite grokked Lizzie's post, but it did motivate me to post something that I've been thinking about after reading some recent threads, namely:

Make us all suck more.  That's the thesis.  Here's how it'd work out, with some motivation.  Non-combat skills would cap at low advanced (with some individual discretion for certain skills that are crucially non-fail and some exception to crafting skills).  Combat sills would cap at journeyman.  You'd move branches down accordingly.

Here's the motivation:

(1) PvE.  As mentioned elsewhere, once you achieve advanced or even high journeyman in your combat skills, there's very little that can hurt you out in the wilds, provided you are paying attention.  (Always bad luck cases.)  And I mean hurt you, period.  I'm not advocating more omidrov wut? moments and staring at the mantis head.  I would like to see more: ouch, flee! moments when moving through the deserts.  Basically, instead of making the mobs tougher, make us less tough.

(2) PvP works out to the same race to the top no matter where that top is: be it master, grand master, or apprentice.  However, there would be a kind of leveling-out effect here by eliminating advanced and master, that I think would be nice.

Ultimately, the motivation is that failing a skill, especially in combat situations, generates a lot more fun than never failing a skill, from RPing out your wound, to having a heart-thumping chase back to safety and a tent for the night, to the potential for more nuanced PvP combat, where arrows fly and some miss, some hit, to having to chase down or hire someone to get more ingredients for the craft you failed, to failing to skin the hide and having to go hunt another one, etc. etc.  We'd also be a lot more 'even' in terms of skills progression.

Anyway, it's a pie in the sky dream idea, but that's it.  There's 20 years or so of work tweaking the current system, so it's really a pie in the sky dream idea, hehe.

I suggested this above, too. But I think it became lost in the post rolls. That's okay. I love you.

[Jingo]

I havn't read the whole thread.

I wouldn't say Reiloth has an awful idea. But it could use some work.

I'm not in favor adding an extra layer to the skill tree. But I am in favor of a sort of questing system that could keep players busy towards the end of their lifetime. Perhaps there was a way for a character to develop jihaen techniques, psionic potential or even rudimentary sorceries after a long, torturous ordeal. Or just get a skill bump or something, I dunno.

[WanderingOoze]

Agree with you Liz, on the bandaging bit.

I hate that you have to be at such a small and specific threshold to be able to be bandaged even if you have the skill but only at starting levels. It is a source of massive frustration and really skewers mundane healer types.

Yeah, this. And it would help to cut down on the dumb but
almost necessary trend of I gotta let myself get my shit kicked
in really bad so I/my clanmate can practice bandaging. That's always been an annoyance. Especially if 'sparring safety' is a rule, but folks are still just not fleeing at an appropriate time -constantly- just to be sure they are 'hurt enough' to be bandaged for the gains.

[Dunetrade55]

Bandaging has never really been that hard for me to master but I agree the magic "twink window" on bandaging leads to some really odd IG behavior, and would like to see it adjusted a little.

[Lizzie]

Bandaging has never really been that hard for me to master but I agree the magic "twink window" on bandaging leads to some really odd IG behavior, and would like to see it adjusted a little.

Not even all that concerned with skill bumps at low successes. But even people who have a papercut need to put a bandaid on, if they're working with "things that will bump into my cut and cause PAIN." And a papercut is maybe - 1hp's worth of damage, if you were to bring "paper cut value" into the game.

Even 1hp's worth of damage should allow someone to bandage them. Even if they get zero skill bump for it, even if it's always 100% successful. I think, whatever the low threshhold is currently, should only mean "this is the lowest that it's possible to fail, and therefore, get a skill raise." And any number of HPs fewer than that would mean "you can still use bandage, it will always work, even if you don't have the bandage skill, and you can't get any skill increase from it."

[Aruven]

I'll just say i've never had a lack of roleplay immersion based on coded combat abilities as is.

[Dar]

Personally, I think all combat skills should be limited to just 1 point prior to having them branched. With that limit dropping down if a character has been alive for 5 IG years, had someone with a Master skill teach them at least once, or is a part of a combat clan.  We can even make it so combat clans allow mastery of different skills.  Tor would allow mastery to shield use.  Byn dual wield, etc, etc.  It would still be possible to master all of these styles, you would just need to hire out someone from a different clan via whatever means available to you.  Working for a Noble house would often entrap you into a lifeoath, but would also open you up to being taught by people that wouldnt normally teach you.


Similar things could work for different skills too. Crafting and such like. Do a stint in Kadius as a crafter trainee, to gain access to mastery on your jewelry/clothes making skills then quit. You'll know the Kadius secrets, but you'll earn Kadius ire via using those secret. Gain a MASSIVE Ire from Kadius by teaching those secrets to other crafters on your way to establishing your own merchant house. Decisions. Decisions.

[Pretentious]

What if skills could go beyond master by a few points so that the range allowed for 'Beyond Master', or "Grand Master"?...

What if you could choose one skill to start at advanced...

Thoughts?

It sounds like it would wreak havoc on the already delicate and quirky balance of the game.

The skill bumps being tied to karma makes sense to me. Hopefully at some point that gets automated. But for the time being, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use special apps if you think your concept should come out of the gates with more skills.

And I DEFINITELY think that any skills having a higher cap than your guild/subguild normally dictates needs to be a spec app, period. And giving any guild that already has the highest cap for that skill even more potential is something I fully object to. I can't think of any instance where that would enrich the game.

Make us all suck more.

I appreciate how well you've articulated your reasoning, motivation, and solution here. However, and no offense intended, I disagree with you pretty much completely. Still trying to articulate my thoughts on it properly, though.

We'd also be a lot more 'even' in terms of skills progression.

By that, do you mean that the difference between and 'old' PC and a 'young' one would be less, or are you talking about the different guilds being more 'even'? Or both?

(Also, if you want to suck more, I'm pretty sure you could spec-app -lower- skill caps)

[Fathi]

Yeah I couldnt think of anything for merchant, I just couldnt

Haggle. 

[nauta]

Make us all suck more.

I appreciate how well you've articulated your reasoning, motivation, and solution here. However, and no offense intended, I disagree with you pretty much completely. Still trying to articulate my thoughts on it properly, though.

None taken!

We'd also be a lot more 'even' in terms of skills progression.

By that, do you mean that the difference between and 'old' PC and a 'young' one would be less, or are you talking about the different guilds being more 'even'? Or both?

The 'old' versus 'young'.  Some people have been spitballing ideas about how to eliminate or weaken the grind on a new PC.  One idea tossed out was to have us all pop into the game out of chargen as fully skilled PCs.  My idea (or I guess boog's! Credz) flips that on its head: you'd need to train a lot less to catch up with other people because we'd all suck equally.  (Now not quite equally: I still want some character development and skills development to allow for variety and, in my view, moving from squishy to hard in an outdoorsy character literally builds character.)

I enjoy that progression when you move from running from gortoks to being able to reasonable handle yourself against one, but having to run from the pack.  I don't really like it when I reach that level where I can go get a coffee when battle starts because I know nothing bad will come to me.

(Also, if you want to suck more, I'm pretty sure you could spec-app -lower- skill caps)

Perhaps it should be: let us all suck equally.  I probably would for the PvE aspect of things -- I really do think that once you reach a certain threshold the animals because a little too easy -- except I wouldn't because of the PvP aspect, or at least I wouldn't be motivated to use a specapp on the idea -- I've played plenty of city-based non-combat types who had combat guilds and never bothered sparring.

[Hauwke]

I think a big fat no to the scaling people down thing. In all honesty all it would achieve is making warriors even worse at their job.

[Pretentious]

let us all suck equally.

Okay, I'm going to try and tackle this without delving too much into the code on skills, combat, and guild, which is probably going to rather challenging given the topic. Forgive me for being vague on points.

(1) PvE.  As mentioned elsewhere, once you achieve advanced or even high journeyman in your combat skills, there's very little that can hurt you out in the wilds, provided you are paying attention.  (Always bad luck cases.)

I'm not quite sure where you're drawing the line on this, but it's not true in my experience. Your objection seems to be that PCs can progress to the point where things that once were deadly challenging end up being much more trivial to face, and if they ever become something your PC is totally comfortable facing, that's a tragic loss to the fun of the game. I feel like that's ignoring the fact that once your PC isn't much challenged by the vicious, horned rabbit that used to give them trouble that there aren't  more challenges out there. As your PC grows and becomes more skilled, that opens up more and more of the Known to them.  You don't just get to the point where nothing poses a real challenge to your PC anymore. There are balrogs out there, damnit, and I want to run away from them scared and half-dead! I'm perfectly happy getting to the point where I can slaughter bunnies, because there is SO MUCH more out there.

If you don't find PvE exciting once gortoks don't pose any real danger to your PC, I can't help but like you're missing out.

I don't really like it when I reach that level where I can go get a coffee when battle starts because I know nothing bad will come to me.

Try that in the Grey Forest. I dare you.

The Known isn't uniform. There's a huge range of danger, in creatures and in situation. And I don't like the idea of being locked into a narrow range of it so that fighting those vicious horned bunnies always has an element of excitement and danger.

(2) PvP works out to the same race to the top no matter where that top is: be it master, grand master, or apprentice.  However, there would be a kind of leveling-out effect here by eliminating advanced and master, that I think would be nice.

It's really hard to talk about this without going into specific skills and guilds, but I'll give it my best shot. First off, this would disproportionately affect combat focused guilds, rather than simply smoothing off the grind. You mentioned that the you were referring to the 'young' vs 'old' rather than also wanting to target guild differences, so I think it's worth noting that the changes you've proposed have significant consequences beyond that - far more heavily for some guilds than others.

Another concern I have is that by trying to make skills less significant, stats are going to matter more. Potentially a lot more. I don't think that's good for the game, and if the solution to that is to narrow the range of stats too the game will just start to feel more and more like a hack'n'slash or some MMO where all characters must be 'balanced' or inherently equal, and that's not what makes Armageddon enjoyable for me.

Some people have been spitballing ideas about how to eliminate or weaken the grind on a new PC....  My idea (or I guess boog's! Credz) flips that on its head: you'd need to train a lot less to catch up with other people because we'd all suck equally.

I don't feel that you and 'some people' are necessarily trying to solve the same problem here. Sure, if we're just talking about being competitive in PvP, making everyone suck equally, you're shortening the time it takes to get there... but for a lot of people, the desire to have skilled PCs isn't about being able to engage in PvP with that grizzled middle-aged legend of a warrior with less of a grind. They want to be involved in hunting dangerous, rare, animals (just one example), and offering them up the mediocrity of always being in danger while fighting gortoks in exchange is the opposite of what they want.

I'm gonna take a moment here to mention that I find it awkward talking about Arm in terms of PvP and PvE. But this post is getting a bit long to go another tangent on why.

Moving on.

failing a skill, especially in combat situations, generates a lot more fun than never failing a skill... having to chase down or hire someone to get more ingredients for the craft you failed, to failing to skin the hide and having to go hunt another one...

I don't fully disagree with you here, but I don't think it's categorically true. If we never failed, the game would be boring. If we failed all over the place, the game would be boring and frustrating. Challenge is fun. Progression is fun. Your effort meaning something is fun. There should be things that are really challenging, things that really aren't, and a whole range in between, and you should be able to strive to improve. And we do have all those things. Could they be improved, nuance added? Sure. But I really don't see 'more failure means more fun!' as a good rule of thumb. It could help in some places, but I think it's just going to end up making things a lot more frustrating across the board if you use it as a guiding principle.

I had more I intended to talk about... but this has gotten rather lengthy.

[Reiloth]

Yeah, i'm confused how lowering the 'skill ceiling' will be anything but frustrating.

Again, i'd rather choose a few skills that are specific to my guild or things my 'guild' is supposed to be good at (hide/sneak for Assassin, or backstab), and train everything else from the ground up.

There are some guilds that have a massive range from 'starting skill' to 'master skill', and branching only at the very end. To me this is the kind of spread that encourages some level of skill-grinding, because the journey from A to B is so hellaciously long, if you were to train the skills realistically, you would never branch, you would never even see the skills that are actually the meat and potatoes of those guilds.

A good example is "Listen" for Ranger, to use a mundane example. Needing to skill-grind listen to gain a skill that is much more the meat and potatoes of that guild leads Rangers to sitting at bars to overhear conversations as the main path towards branching. Sure, Rangers should be 'out in the wilds, listening for creatures to rustle about', but given how hard it is to find those creatures for a new rangers (see: newbie scan), and the futility of it, most Rangers will go into a tavern to sit at another table and overhear the bar. That to me means something is wrong with the order of the skills, and with the emphasis on where the branching of that skill is.

If branching a skill were based on wisdom, or more heavily on wisdom, rather than reaching a certain numerical threshold of a skill, I think we would automatically see more realistic play.

This means, if you have a high wisdom character, they might branch a skill even when they are at say, apprentice or journeyman. So the 'pop' of a branch isn't something you can predict (which you very much can now). It's something that happens naturally, and if your PC is hip to how the universe fits together (high wisdom), they figure it out quicker than the dump-stat Bynner who can just barely figure out which side is the pointy end.

To me this means...Merchants will figure out the crafts they want to get to, without needing to grind 'Useless Farts' for a sacred branch. Assassins might be able to use non-lethal methods before they learn how to use the lethal methods with extreme efficiency. A high-wisdom warrior might branch an advanced weapon at apprentice or jman, diversifying the weapons that are used in the world and the 'talents' between Warriors.

tl;dr

Associate when skills branch with the wisdom stat. Lower the range of when a skill can branch.

[bardlyone]

That's a badass idea, too, Reiloth. Though I'm admittedly biased and nearly always prioritize wisdom first.

[Delirium]

swap sneak/hide to start with and have them branch listen/scan.

problem solved

[Reiloth]

swap sneak/hide to start with and have them branch listen/scan.

problem solved

That's just with Ranger, and I don't think it solves the problem. Each Guild has its own set of 'Actually Useful Skill preceded by skill that's marginally useful'. I don't think this is very congruous, unless you can pick and choose skills, which we can't.

I think we should either be raising the minimums (which I don't think is necessarily fair or the answer), or having branching be totally random and based on wisdom (which I think is more fair, and actually more realistic). So it's random, but you have a better chance of branching based off your wisdom and the minimum of the skill. It gets easier to branch the better you get at a skill, but it isn't some narrow range 80-90 when you branch. It's anytime, baby!

[In Dreams]

Yeah, i'm confused how lowering the 'skill ceiling' will be anything but frustrating.

Again, i'd rather choose a few skills that are specific to my guild or things my 'guild' is supposed to be good at (hide/sneak for Assassin, or backstab), and train everything else from the ground up.

There are some guilds that have a massive range from 'starting skill' to 'master skill', and branching only at the very end. To me this is the kind of spread that encourages some level of skill-grinding, because the journey from A to B is so hellaciously long, if you were to train the skills realistically, you would never branch, you would never even see the skills that are actually the meat and potatoes of those guilds.

A good example is "Listen" for Ranger, to use a mundane example. Needing to skill-grind listen to gain a skill that is much more the meat and potatoes of that guild leads Rangers to sitting at bars to overhear conversations as the main path towards branching. Sure, Rangers should be 'out in the wilds, listening for creatures to rustle about', but given how hard it is to find those creatures for a new rangers (see: newbie scan), and the futility of it, most Rangers will go into a tavern to sit at another table and overhear the bar. That to me means something is wrong with the order of the skills, and with the emphasis on where the branching of that skill is.

If branching a skill were based on wisdom, or more heavily on wisdom, rather than reaching a certain numerical threshold of a skill, I think we would automatically see more realistic play.

This means, if you have a high wisdom character, they might branch a skill even when they are at say, apprentice or journeyman. So the 'pop' of a branch isn't something you can predict (which you very much can now). It's something that happens naturally, and if your PC is hip to how the universe fits together (high wisdom), they figure it out quicker than the dump-stat Bynner who can just barely figure out which side is the pointy end.

To me this means...Merchants will figure out the crafts they want to get to, without needing to grind 'Useless Farts' for a sacred branch. Assassins might be able to use non-lethal methods before they learn how to use the lethal methods with extreme efficiency. A high-wisdom warrior might branch an advanced weapon at apprentice or jman, diversifying the weapons that are used in the world and the 'talents' between Warriors.

tl;dr

Associate when skills branch with the wisdom stat. Lower the range of when a skill can branch.

I love this idea!