The yin and yang of sparring/training now

[Cerelum]

As a guy who plays pretty much outdoors types exclusively, with a magicker thrown in here and there.

I personally am happy once I can survive the standard critters in the game.  Scrab, spiders, raptors, beetles ect.

I get scared everytime I fight something bigger and badder, because I know that's the only way to get my skills higher, but death is almost assured, which sucks.

I do wish you could train on NPC's better and with a more gradual scale versus the sharp incline you have to train with now.

[gotdamnmiracle]

understand more and more as a non-player

Lol sick, dude.

Not sure why people who don't play feel the need to weigh in on game mechanics.

As for the discussion here: I'm glad it's finally being had in this capacity. Everyone knows the issues and everyone is unhappy with it one way or the other. The vocal minority who are fine with it are apparently not interested seeing a change because they can't understand the psychology of others.

Mainly the reason I want to make master "attainable" is so that you don't have unstoppable PCs who used the "one crazy trick you wouldn't believe- staffers hate him!" And now even though you have the strength of an entire clan behind you it's unfeasible to attack (or even cross them) because they are willing to twink and you aren't. It's laughably unrealistically. But the fact of the matter is that realism is just one of the scapegoats apologists of the current system will use. It immediately becomes an irrelevant concern once you point out how unrealistic it actually is and is promptly discarded in favor of a different argument such as the classic "what's the point of being strong?".

Honestly, why not gate the whole thing behind time? Master is completely achievable, but your PC can only learn so much in an IG year and then once lowsun rolls around again standstill is lifted and you're back to learning again until you hit your limit for the next IG year.

Hell! I'd even be open to gating and then allowing players past certain thresholds after certain staffers give a wave of the wand. That way anyone could have the opportunity to improve. That said that's one hell of a way to get favoritism accusations.

[oggotale]

Is it true that a "good chunk" of master tier badasses are getting there by these uber twinking techniques this thread has allusions to.

Or is it the main issue that players are losing a sense of progression. So then the idea that progression can be done by dedicated twinkery is just salt on the wound?

The former has a pretty simple solution of closing these loopholes which afaik shouldn't be too hard.

[Brokkr]

Are folks talking about weapon skills?  Or are they talking weapons+off+def?  Very different conversations.

With weapon skills, the point of "master" shifted up with the new classes.  It is roughly at the point that warriors used to truly max (vs seeing "master").  I probably should have left it where it was, but didn't want folks to loose potential they had with the advanced weapon skills.

So, roughly, now you have folks that used to see "master" see "advanced".  Folks who see "master" now would be those who had maxed a weapon (or more), which was always a very low number at any one time, at least while I've been around (think less than 10 at any one time, usually less than 5).

[gotdamnmiracle]

Is it true that a "good chunk" of master tier badasses are getting there by these uber twinking techniques this thread has allusions to.

Or is it the main issue that players are losing a sense of progression. So then the idea that progression can be done by dedicated twinkery is just salt on the wound?

The former has a pretty simple solution of closing these loopholes which afaik shouldn't be too hard.

I guess, yes, some of it is what you consider bad ass, however there are PCs that can become some powerful that nothing you can throw at them will reasonably kill them. If a single PC fights off and kills an entire clan of other PCs (whether it was through twinking or not) is that realistic? Is it fun? Is it a good portrayal of murder, corruption, and betrayal? Is it within the realm of fair we are shooting for? I'd say no to most of those. Maybe it's fun for the meta-PC. But when five clannies can't figure out how to take down one mundane unaffiliated there's a problem, twinking or no. If it doesn't rest in how strong it one pc is it exists in how much sparring-mudsexing-sparring a clan must do to confidently catch up.

This was a real occurrence. Five PCs were terrified to take down one singular threat. What a boring PC it must be for that player.
<<SNIP>> Moderated by Delirium, please don't refer to specific PCs like that, especially semi-recent ones.

[oggotale]

How hard is a poison backstab thoe.

[mansa]

Mainly the reason I want to make master "attainable" is so that you don't have unstoppable PCs who used the "one crazy trick you wouldn't believe- staffers hate him!" And now even though you have the strength of an entire clan behind you it's unfeasible to attack (or even cross them) because they are willing to twink and you aren't. ....

... however there are PCs that can become some powerful that nothing you can throw at them will reasonably kill them.

If a single PC fights off and kills an entire clan of other PCs (whether it was through twinking or not) is that realistic?
Is it fun?
Is it a good portrayal of murder, corruption, and betrayal?
Is it within the realm of fair we are shooting for?

I'd say no to most of those. Maybe it's fun for the meta-PC. But when five clannies can't figure out how to take down one mundane unaffiliated there's a problem, twinking or no.


If it doesn't rest in how strong it one pc is it exists in how much sparring-mudsexing-sparring a clan must do to confidently catch up.

This is a different conversation that I don't think has been brought up much in this thread.  It kinda answers my questions of "Why am I trying to become powerful?"  Is it, "I'm trying because there are other characters who are powerful, more powerful than I, and I want to be competitive in combat and have a chance at defeating them?"

The skill progression really is about - trying to be better than than trying to kill x mobs.

Is that right?   Player vs Player conflict?

[Miradus]

To speak to GDM's point (I think) ...

If that meta-PC is one of a precious few who value story and narrative over "winning" then you're going to get some fun if they declare war on you/your clan.

But current game mechanics tend to lean into the powergamer becoming that meta-pc rather than the ones who value the character arc and narrative.

It's not a matter of karma. Some of the scariest hijinks I've been involved in I initiated with no-karma combos.

I want to be the best when I do something. If I roll out of chargen with some wretched horror then I wanted to be the wretchediest. If I roll out with someone weak but devious, I want to be the most devious. If I roll out with someone whose main thing is combat, then I want to be as good as I can reasonably get at combat. I don't particularly want to be the guy in the group everyone knows they have to rescue, unless I planned to be that way from the start.

[Namino]

Attempting to define why people want to achieve 100% mastery of their skill is immaterial in my opinion. The fact that people wish to do this is an inherent facet of humanity. People climb mountains because they're there, lift heavy ass weight too see what they can do, learn to solve rubix cubes as fast as possible, and so on and so on. The desire to push to the limits of the possible is absolutely inherent in the human psyche and that extends into the video games we play. People collecting all the optional stars in Mario games, going for S rank clears in Devil May Cry, or the insane Darksouls no hit speedrunners. People have an inherent desire to redline the engine of efficiency -- just to see what they can do.

This has been a very obvious aspect of games for a long time. Entire books of game design have been written on how to properly scale the challenge of your game with the skill progression of your players/their avatars in order to reward their efforts and encourage them to continue redlining what the game is capable of.

Armageddon has horribly failed to capture that basic tenet of game design and in many ways, has demonstrated an administrative policy of outright rejecting it -- rejecting a core component of what makes games fun. The fact that for the past year there has been constant discussion in dozens of different threads on this exact same issue should send a loud message that the game is failing to address the needs of its playerbase. An entire quartile of Bartles Taxonomy is dedicated to Achievers -- the mountain climbers -- for heavens sake. Why is it so difficult to understand that actively denying those basic components of gameplay widely acknowledge in the industry to support those players will leave them unhappy and drive them away?

[Miradus]

Yeah, ignore what I said and just go with what Namino said. It's more coherent.

I feel like a lot of this would be solved if we, the players, knew some numbers ...

How many enforcers have branched backstab/sap? How many soldiers branched riposte/hack?

Or since the guild change, what has been the breakdown of combat-types who hit advanced and master?

[Synthesis]

Mainly the reason I want to make master "attainable" is so that you don't have unstoppable PCs who used the "one crazy trick you wouldn't believe- staffers hate him!" And now even though you have the strength of an entire clan behind you it's unfeasible to attack (or even cross them) because they are willing to twink and you aren't. ....

... however there are PCs that can become some powerful that nothing you can throw at them will reasonably kill them.

If a single PC fights off and kills an entire clan of other PCs (whether it was through twinking or not) is that realistic?
Is it fun?
Is it a good portrayal of murder, corruption, and betrayal?
Is it within the realm of fair we are shooting for?

I'd say no to most of those. Maybe it's fun for the meta-PC. But when five clannies can't figure out how to take down one mundane unaffiliated there's a problem, twinking or no.


If it doesn't rest in how strong it one pc is it exists in how much sparring-mudsexing-sparring a clan must do to confidently catch up.

This is a different conversation that I don't think has been brought up much in this thread.  It kinda answers my questions of "Why am I trying to become powerful?"  Is it, "I'm trying because there are other characters who are powerful, more powerful than I, and I want to be competitive in combat and have a chance at defeating them?"

The skill progression really is about - trying to be better than than trying to kill x mobs.

Is that right?   Player vs Player conflict?

It depends on what your gamer type is, generally.

An achiever might want to get to mastery simply because mastery is technically possible.  Or yes, they may simply want to be able to "beat" anyone else.

An explorer might want to get to mastery because mastery = better defense, and better defense means you can explore without dying.

A socializer might want to get to mastery because being good means being useful, and being useful means being more able to get involved with other players.

Beyond that...there's the matter of the class system, where Enforcer trades off utility for being better at fighting than Infiltrators, and Infiltrators trade off utility for being tougher than Miscreants.  However, the trade-off is fundamentally useless if everyone plateaus at jman.  What's the point of being technically able to master piercing weapons and dual wield, when realistically your piercing weapons and dual wield skills will never even reach a Miscreant cap?  What's the point of rolling an Enforcer with master backstab when realistically, you will never branch backstab?

I mean, fighter vs. soldier, you give up on the possibility of literally hundreds of thousands of 'sids in lifetime crafting skills: fletchery, knives, swords, spears, clubs, and axes.  Realistically, you'll never be better than a soldier (or probably even a laborer) at anything except parry, shield use, kick, disarm, and bash--which admittedly are useful, but the difference isn't -that- great unless you're getting into some weird solo PvP situations or PvE'ing ubergith or mantises.

Or raiders vs. their lower-tier classes.  You're giving up WILDERNESS QUIT and food forage for the vague promise of being better at combat, and hey, as a raider, you're "outdoorsy," so you have the excuse to go out and critter grind, so you can do that...but oh by the way, you're forced to burn a subguild for the lowly skinning skill, so you don't look like a chode out there spamkilling big game without even a fig-leaf to cover the skillgains.

So...the jman plateau is a slap in the face to basic game design, and it's even contradictory to the game's own internal class design.

[gotdamnmiracle]

It seems jarring to me that if it somehow was released that cutlery (spoons, forks, butter knives) could be used as weapons, but severely reduced your offense in the process as a trade off you would see a huge schism among players. You would see the total badasses stabbing lizards and rinthis to death with a clay spoon and then those PCs who would condemn them for that sort of immersion breaking activity while actually doing the same thing in private. Finally, you would see a tiny little group who stick to their values (and the socializer players) getting their asses handed to them because they're SOO so far behind the curve. I have a feeling the groups would be about equal in size, save for that final one.

[Synthesis]

It seems jarring to me that if it somehow was released that cutlery (spoons, forks, butter knives) could be used as weapons, but severely reduced your offense in the process as a trade off you would see a huge schism among players. You would see the total badasses stabbing lizards and rinthis to death with a clay spoon and then those PCs who would condemn them for that sort of immersion breaking activity while actually doing the same thing in private. Finally, you would see a tiny little group who stick to their values (and the socializer players) getting their asses handed to them because they're SOO so far behind the curve. I have a feeling the groups would be about equal in size, save for that final one.

You can already do this with trash weapons.  Lower damage-per-hit means more swings-per-fight, and more swings-per-fight (assuming a dodge rate of greater than 0%) means more dodges per fight.  If you don't care about training style, ep only.

[Brokkr]

Most game design isn't oriented towards running a RP game in a 25+ year old code base where the overall goal is role playing and not getting to level 100 or reaching 100 skill in X.

[Namino]

Most game design isn't oriented towards running a RP game in a 25+ year old code base where the overall goal is role playing and not getting to level 100 or reaching 100 skill in X.

The fact that Armageddon is a video game in a niche genre does not make it any less a video game and therefore does not place it outside of the bounds of the basic tenets of game design.

Bartle published his taxonomy for his MUD, and it's pretty egregious to suggest the fact that people roleplay in Armageddon suddenly neutralizes the fact that a meaningful interface between progression and challenge is central to the success of a game. There is an entire bevvy of tabletop games (many of which much older than 25 years!) in which roleplaying is a central facet, and none of them toss their progression system onto the dungheap in order to do it.

But let's wander down your logical pathway for a moment.

[...]where the overall goal is role playing and not getting to level 100 or reaching 100 skill in X.

Well, then, what is the overall goal? You seem to think there is one.

Is the overall goal to personify realistic characters with believable goals and motivations? Because pushing the limits of ones abilities, including physical abilities, is one of the most common, relateable, and believable goals there is.

It's why we admire people like Usain Bolt, Magnus Carlsen, Kurt Vonnegut, and Michelangelo. Those people decided in one way or another to push the limits of what was possible and if they found a way to type <SKILL> IRL they'd see 100/100 (or near to it) in sprinting, chess, postmodernism and sculpting respectively. They aren't any less 'real' or 'believable' because they drove themselves to the heights of their skills. If anything, they're more memorable a cast of characters for their singular focus.

You seem to think that having ambitions to maximize a skill and portraying a deeply textured character are fundamentally opposed goals. That is simply wrong. Most interesting figures from history are interesting because they decided to specialize and become extraordinary in a skill of their choosing, from diplomacy to quantum physics, either because they gained fame due to their skill, or because of what they were able to accomplish in the subsequent applications.

And, ultimately, the fact that we talk about this damn subject 2/3 times a fiscal quarter in threads with dozens and dozens of posts should be plenty of evidence that there's an underserved section of your playerbase who are frustrated, vocally so, with the current situation. Are you not interested in improving the experience for these players?

[John]

Why is it so difficult to understand that actively denying those basic components of gameplay widely acknowledge in the industry to support those players will leave them unhappy and drive them away?

A handful of the same people clogging up the GDB for a year do not make a compelling statistical argument about something being a problem.

[Is Friday]

Man I hope the dissenting parties aren't in business, or I think things might not be going well. Armageddon is something of a creative work but the less it's operated like a business that takes into account popular opinion, the more people become bored or estranged by oddly defensive staff. "It's my baby and it works this way cause it always has." That's a terrible business model in any respects. Especially if you all would like to retain players.

I don't see what the big deal with adjusting weapon skill learning is. It would bring more people to RP and do reasonable stuff with their time. Why is that a bad thing?

[Cabooze]

I don't see what the big deal with adjusting weapon skill learning is. It would bring more people to RP and do reasonable stuff with their time. Why is that a bad thing?

It could also really come down to a model like..

being parried is 1/5 less likely than a dodge to give gains

being blocked is 1/10 less likely than a dodge to give gains.

That alone could resolve a lot of these logistical balance issues of needing to twink ungodly amounts to even dream of being able to push off that plateau you're stuck on. Sure.. You'll still be twinking to get out of that spot, but it's a lot less grueling and opens up potential for you to end up doing more fun things with your time.

[Is Friday]

Exactly. The game design should promote more RP. Making it impossible to progress in a military clan forces some players to do unrealistic stuff.

[Eyeball]

Why is it so difficult to understand that actively denying those basic components of gameplay widely acknowledge in the industry to support those players will leave them unhappy and drive them away?

A handful of the same people clogging up the GDB for a year do not make a compelling statistical argument about something being a problem.

And yet polls, which would determine whether it is really just a "handful of the same people clogging up the GDB", aren't allowed on the GDB.

[Namino]

Exactly. The game design should promote more RP. Making it impossible to progress in a military clan forces some players to do unrealistic stuff.

And the real irony is that the oft touted solution is for people to stop caring about progress, which is the most unrealistic response of all. People care about self improvement; it's a massive impetus. Our characters not being concerned with how good they are at the skills that determine their survival and place in society would make them utterly unrealistic.

[maxid]

But you don't have to train to do/interact with/see 95% of Arm.

In fact you literally never have to train to be a badass in Arm either.  So I don't get why people act like training is a requirement, ever, except to be part of the Byn/AoD.

[Brokkr]

It's why we admire people like Usain Bolt, Magnus Carlsen, Kurt Vonnegut, and Michelangelo. Those people decided in one way or another to push the limits of what was possible and if they found a way to type <SKILL> IRL they'd see 100/100 (or near to it) in sprinting, chess, postmodernism and sculpting respectively. They aren't any less 'real' or 'believable' because they drove themselves to the heights of their skills. If anything, they're more memorable a cast of characters for their singular focus.

You seem to think that having ambitions to maximize a skill and portraying a deeply textured character are fundamentally opposed goals. That is simply wrong. Most interesting figures from history are interesting because they decided to specialize and become extraordinary in a skill of their choosing, from diplomacy to quantum physics, either because they gained fame due to their skill, or because of what they were able to accomplish in the subsequent applications.

Usain Bolt isn't interesting because he decided to be the best and then went on to be the best.  Usain is interesting because there were a whole lot of people who decided to become the best, that he then competed against and came out the best.  Ditto the rest, although not necessarily in such an obviously competitive environment.

Most of your characters in Arm won't be Usain Bolt.  Even though they are trying to be Usain Bolt.  Lots of video games allow you to be Usain Bolt, unless they are something like FPS when your RL skills are vectored in.

Some folks (Thrain, Sujaal, Red Meso, Khann, Pearl, etc.) might actually end up becoming like the RL folks you mention.  It is a small list vs the number of characters that have existed (or even long lived characters).

Man I hope the dissenting parties aren't in business, or I think things might not be going well. Armageddon is something of a creative work but the less it's operated like a business that takes into account popular opinion, the more people become bored or estranged by oddly defensive staff. "It's my baby and it works this way cause it always has." That's a terrible business model in any respects. Especially if you all would like to retain players.

It functions on multiple levels more like a non-Profit than a for Profit.  In that model, it is often the goal of the organization and ability to service it that takes the place of focusing on customer desires.  As an extreme example, if a large majority of players suddenly wanted Arm to be a hack'n'slash, a customer focused organization would make the shift and a goal oriented one would not.

That isn't to say we aren't listening to your ideas.  Those ideas have to be congruent the overall goals and experience we've accumulated running Arm.  If you are coming in with ideas that serve a conflicting goals there is going to be less traction.

[Synthesis]

The repeated assertion/implication that being able to attain mastery by NOT engaging in poor play is somehow anti-RP is preposterous.

[Namino]

It's why we admire people like Usain Bolt, Magnus Carlsen, Kurt Vonnegut, and Michelangelo. Those people decided in one way or another to push the limits of what was possible and if they found a way to type <SKILL> IRL they'd see 100/100 (or near to it) in sprinting, chess, postmodernism and sculpting respectively. They aren't any less 'real' or 'believable' because they drove themselves to the heights of their skills. If anything, they're more memorable a cast of characters for their singular focus.

You seem to think that having ambitions to maximize a skill and portraying a deeply textured character are fundamentally opposed goals. That is simply wrong. Most interesting figures from history are interesting because they decided to specialize and become extraordinary in a skill of their choosing, from diplomacy to quantum physics, either because they gained fame due to their skill, or because of what they were able to accomplish in the subsequent applications.

Usain Bolt isn't interesting because he decided to be the best and then went on to be the best.  Usain is interesting because there were a whole lot of people who decided to become the best, that he then competed against and came out the best.  Ditto the rest, although not necessarily in such an obviously competitive environment.

Continuing with the analogy, you've created a system where the only way Usain Bolt could become faster is by tripping and smashing his face into the track every time he ran. Running as fast as possible on the track would not increase his speed or improve his time, and his competitors who unlaced their shoes (ep vs etwo) or tied their shoelaces together (unarmed laying in a field versus a turaal) were much much faster than him on race day.

It's bad. It encourages bad faith play. It's not realistic. It delegitimizes people trying to stay true to their characters while also aspiring to excel.

The continued pushback in the face of something that is industry standard understanding is hilarious.

The repeated assertion/implication that being able to attain mastery by NOT engaging in poor play is somehow anti-RP is preposterous.

Backing this up.