The yin and yang of sparring/training now

[Greve]

A big part of the problem - as is a time-honored tradition on Armageddon - is that one side of the fence wilfully misinterprets all of the other side's arguments as "I wanna max out everything in one week so I can PK everybody! What is RP?" I'm on the verge of calling the code unfixable not because it's difficult to fix but because half of the community is too contrarian.

Several times I've seen people suggest that the skill caps simply be lowered to the plateau level so that people will shut up about it, as if the most important thing is to ensure that PCs' weapon skills remain as low as possible. Like that's some how the goal of the code. Why exactly is this a priority? We might as well not have combat skills, then.

[Cerelum]

I feel like it's more that they don't want folks to be able to kill everything.

Because if say a long lived hunter becomes a twink, they can spawn a Gaj or Mek on him and problem solved.

I don't think the pk part of it is really the huge concern.  Because that gets noticed and you're supposed to wish up when you kill someone.  So if you're being a griefer and going and murdering folks all the time it's gonna get noticed.

Now I don't know if killing all the salt worms or all the dujats triggers similar notice.

And again this is all just a feeling from reading these posts, do I know for sure? Nope.

But to me it feels like they want us easily killable as a control method.

[Greve]

That's a very poor reason to keep a dysfunctional system. Weapon skills don't even play that big a role in whether or not you can kill some big beastie. When it comes to things like that, there's very little difference between jman and master weapons because that mekillot won't dodge you either way. Your "damage output," for want of a better term, is pretty much the same at any skill level if the thing you're fighting can't dodge and parry you, which brings us back to the issue of animals being hilariously terrible fighters.

[Synthesis]

Overall, I think the best method is to a) make parries and blocks count as failures and b) gate the final steps to mastery behind longevity.

Then there are multiple ways to implement a longevity gate:
1) Single hard gate:  If master is skill level 80, you can get to 79 as fast as you can possibly do it, but you will never get that skill bump to 80 until you pass the longevity gate.  Worst-case scenario, you start at 79 at chargen, and never get a skillbump until you hit 20 days (or whatever the gate is).  Worst-case scenario, you mudsex for 19 days and suddenly become a master at 20 days 1 hour when you suddenly begin training.

2) Skillgain timer gate:  Your skillgain timer for each weapon/style skill is set at chargen, based on your starting skill and the skill level at which mastery occurs.  If you start at jman (e.g. 40) slashing because of a skill boost, and mastery occurs at 80, that's a difference of 40 skill points.  If the skillgain gate is set to 20 days played, the fastest you can get to mastery is 40 points in 20 days, so your skill timer for slashing is set for 12 hours of logged-in time.  You can get a skillgain to slashing weapons every 12 hours played, so it will be -at least- 20 days before you progress to master slashing.

3) Multiple-step longevity gating:  There are four "steps" on the way to master (apprentice, journeyman, advanced, master).  Each of these steps is longevity-gated.  It's not necessary for them to be proportional, but for simplicity of explanation, they'll be proportional for this discussion.  20 days divided by 4 steps is 5 days apiece.  You can't achieve apprentice before 5 days.  You can't achieve jman before 10 days.  You can't achieve advanced before 15 days.  You can't achieve master before 20 days.  If you start at jman out of chargen, it will still be 15 days before you can hit advanced.

4) RL-time gating:  replace each of the above scenarios with real-life time as the metric instead of logged-in time.  This prevents padding the login clock by idling.

I think the longevity gate will work better for clan sparring, because once you hit the gate, you know that it's pointless to grind for yourself at a certain point.  (I'd argue that the best "location" for the gate is right -after- the word-based-metric.  E.g. you technically can hit advanced before 15 days, but it will be locked in at minimum advanced.  This way, you know you hit the wall, and that it's pointless to grind until you hit 15 days.) Back to the point:  if you know grinding for yourself is not going to be effective, you now have two options open 1) help your clannies grind, by being a good sparring buddy (much easier to do if you aren't worried about your own gains); or 2) go out and get into some shit instead of worrying about losing time not sparring.

OMG! This solution sucks! It's awful game design! How dare you make something that requires hours upon hours of play! I know a bug that lets me exploit the code so therefore the longevity cap should be removed! This is just bad game design and encourages idling! No-one will try to do anything until they reach the abritrary longevity hurdle! I might as well quit the game and come back in 1 year's time when I can finally reach master!

Yes, that's a bit over the top. But some of those points are very close to real quotes we've gotten from those who keep championing that the code be changed.

First everyone complained about skill levels not being shown, and then they were displayed.

Then everyone complained about how it takes too long to become competent, so the classes were overhauled and each class was made easier to reach competence.

Then there was a complaint that you just can't get a skill failure on combat skills no matter how much you spar, and so a change was introduced to give you a chance at skilling up from every sparring session.

Now the complaint is that it takes too long to get skill ups beyond a certain point and so it's being suggested that the amount of time required be reduced (or be codified to some OOC concept of playtime hours).

Guaranteed if the staff make the game easier to reach master on combat skills, then the next complaints will be:
1) The game is too easy.
2) You might as well not exist until you get master on all your combat skills.
3) There's no more game progression.

A good design team will listen to player feedback. A bad design team will let players dictate what changes occur in the game's design.

Every time staff has changed the game to address concerns, the old concerns have been replaced by new concerns. Some of these changes have been good for the game. I believe some of them have been a detriment to the game. I believe making doing any of the changes synthesis has proposed will result in more people leaving the game then we currently have.

I do think the game might benefit by having weapon skills be somewhat easier to master. But I don't know for sure. I do know that synthesis's solutions will simply make the game flat out bad.

Although I do expect to have this post met with a tirade by synthesis.

People have always been complaining about how long it takes to master weapon skills.  Everyone knows that you branch when you get near your guild max for the skill.  Everyone knew that warriors branched advanced weapons from weapon skills.  So you could use this as a metric as to whether you were a "master" yet: as soon as you popped an advanced weapon, you knew you were pretty damn good.  And everyone could tell what was going on:  people stuck in clans, sparring, never branched advanced weapons.  But if you quit your clan and went out to grind on pointless critters, lo and behold, you would branch advanced weapons.  If you -started- by critter grinding, you could branch an advanced weapon in as little as 15 days, if you really put work into it and didn't waste time idling or talking to other PCs.

This is also why simply "renaming the skill levels" or "getting rid of being able to see how good you are" is not going to work.  Everyone knows Enforcer branches backstab and sap from weapon skills, so all you have to do to judge the system is roll an Enforcer and observe how long it takes you to branch backstab organically.  Then, this timeframe should apply to Raiders and Fighters (roughly).  Soldiers branch riposte from slashing or hack from chopping...so you can use a Soldier PC to judge how long it takes to get to advanced.  Beyond that...listen...if you've ever had a weapon skill at master, you can tell who's master and who's not, because the proportion of crit shots is DRAMATICALLY higher.  Yes, at jman you can land a hit almost every time.  But at master, you're either dropping head/neck/wrist crits or solid body shots -every- -single- -hit- (slight exaggeration).  Hiding skill levels might bamboozle the noobs, but it's not going to fool anyone who's been playing the game for awhile.

That being said:  this thread is not complaining about how long it takes.  This thread, again, is about how it is nigh-impossible to even get it done, if you don't resort to critter grinding. 

I don't think the "parries-blocks-count-as-fails + longevity gate" solution is the ideal solution.  I think it's a compromise solution that accomplishes a few important goals without introducing a lot of weird mechanics or gaminess.  It ensures that you -can- attain mastery by playing reasonably, but it also -limits- the number of PCs who will attain it, by setting the bar high.  And the only way to game it is to idle (if it's a days-played timer) or by not logging in at all (if it's a RL-time timer).  Hell, you could make the timer an AND timer instead of an OR timer:  you have to be 20 days played in-game AND six months old RL time.  I feel like there probably are not enough players out there who are so sociopathically patient that they would be able to game a longevity gate.

(And listen, 20 days played/six months is just my rough guess about how long PCs live.  It might be 30 or 40 and 9 months or a year.)

[Brokkr]

I've mentioned this before, but when we added in the new classes we added in the ability to decouple the branching point from the max skill level of the skill you worked up to branch from.

To give an extreme example, I would *rofl* if you judged Soldier that way.

[Synthesis]

I feel like it's more that they don't want folks to be able to kill everything.

Because if say a long lived hunter becomes a twink, they can spawn a Gaj or Mek on him and problem solved.

I don't think the pk part of it is really the huge concern.  Because that gets noticed and you're supposed to wish up when you kill someone.  So if you're being a griefer and going and murdering folks all the time it's gonna get noticed.

Now I don't know if killing all the salt worms or all the dujats triggers similar notice.

And again this is all just a feeling from reading these posts, do I know for sure? Nope.

But to me it feels like they want us easily killable as a control method.

That's absurd.

Even completely maxed out, fighting a mekillot solo is an absolutely stupid idea, so there's no reason to keep PCs nerfed to prevent them from doing it.  A mekillot can easily OHK a humanoid, and the only thing stopping that is your defense, not your weapon skill.  There is no level of PC-attainable parry and defense that will reliably protect you from getting hit by a mekillot, and one hit -will- eventually kill you if you make a habit of fighting them without magick or an HG to tank.

Beyond that, if you're being such a dickweed that staff feel compelled to take action, they aren't going to shadow-gank you with a random spawn.  They're going to let you know LOUD AND CLEAR that what you're doing is unacceptable.

I've mentioned this before, but when we added in the new classes we added in the ability to decouple the branching point from the max skill level of the skill you worked up to branch from.

To give an extreme example, I would *rofl* if you judged Soldier that way.

Oh yeah, forgot about that.  Point remains that since it's a fixed point, it's still a metric.

[Riev]

Quasi-Facetious idea:

People plateau around high Journeyman. Downshift the skill level indicators for this, so that they see Advanced.
Make them use a karma point for a subguild called "Master [Combatant]", or Master Swordsman, whatever. Make a player decide that they don't just want to be "good at combat", they're specifically sacrificing utility and other skills to MASTER it, sort of like crafting.

Then make it cost a karma point/special app slot to talk to staff when they get to Advanced to get the last 10-pt skill bump they're looking for. Is it a quest? Fight this NPC and win? Logs?

Let me sacrifice utility and crafting to signify that, yes, I want to be a master combatant. I'm looking for top tier weapon skills here. When I am ready for them, I have to spend even more karma.

That certainly will limit how many people get to that point, will let staff more easily monitor who is at that level, and Fighter/Crafters will still be VERY good at their jobs, as good as a master combatant, for a time.

[Synthesis]

Quasi-Facetious idea:

People plateau around high Journeyman. Downshift the skill level indicators for this, so that they see Advanced.
Make them use a karma point for a subguild called "Master [Combatant]", or Master Swordsman, whatever. Make a player decide that they don't just want to be "good at combat", they're specifically sacrificing utility and other skills to MASTER it, sort of like crafting.

Then make it cost a karma point/special app slot to talk to staff when they get to Advanced to get the last 10-pt skill bump they're looking for. Is it a quest? Fight this NPC and win? Logs?

Let me sacrifice utility and crafting to signify that, yes, I want to be a master combatant. I'm looking for top tier weapon skills here. When I am ready for them, I have to spend even more karma.

That certainly will limit how many people get to that point, will let staff more easily monitor who is at that level, and Fighter/Crafters will still be VERY good at their jobs, as good as a master combatant, for a time.

Why would you need a subguild to get to the maximum skill capability that the Staff have already decided is appropriate for a Fighter, Raider, or Enforcer?

Picking Enforcer, Raider, or Fighter already -is- the sacrifice.  Simply going one tier down in each column opens up absolutely massive improvements to utility, playability, and overall fun.  I mean, yo...raiders don't even get skinning or wilderness quit.  I can't look between the raider and scout skill sheets without feeling a little sick.  Soldiers get NINE crafting skills.  Infiltrators START WITH BACKSTAB, and Enforcers don't get poisoning or city hunt. What? What?.  Picking top-tier is an up-front kick in the nuts, and then a pat on the back wishing you luck for a 20-day grind before you ever see the upside of it.  The idea that what we really need is a kick in the nuts AND an atomic wedgie is preposterous.

If the maximum skill capability is too high, the obvious solution is to just nerf the max.  Not implement some bizarro-system where everyone looks better than they are, but then you have to beg staff to let you git gud.

[Armaddict]

If the maximum skill capability is too high, the obvious solution is to just nerf the max.  Not implement some bizarro-system where everyone looks better than they are, but then you have to beg staff to let you git gud.

Uhm.

Then you'd be in the same boat, but with no capability of reaching the legendary status.  All that would change is the little (text) after the weapon skill.

Normally I'm with you as far as weapon skills branching things, I thought the advanced weapon skills could be moved lower down to be more attainable, but the only place where this still exists is enforcer backstab, right?  (I might be totally mistaken there).  It was stated that such was intentional.

So I'm really confused why that solution is so appealing.  It's literally a string of characters pissing people off if that's a better solution in your head.  If that was just total tongue-in-cheek, ignore this.

Picking Enforcer, Raider, or Fighter already -is- the sacrifice.

While I agree with the sentiment...if you recall, when the new classes came out, I was talking about how too many skills were crammed into too many guilds, and we needed to do away with extended subguilds to balance it out...the heavy combat tier is probably the main reason to keep extended subs in place.  While they sacrifice a lot in the utility skills, those are, in specializations, available through extended subguilds which makes me really not worry about them having skinning and such.  They can get it, if they're just a more martial version of their survivalist counterparts.

[Gracchus]

Keeping up with the thread, do not gate weapons skill behind irl time, PLEASE...that's just obnoxious, there's already tons of content gated behind karma and such that requires playing the game awhile irl, there should not be timesinks for simple stuff like being good at swords.

[Armaddict]

What -content- exactly is 'gated' by master weapon skills?

[Delirium]

What -content- exactly is 'gated' by master weapon skills?

Being the very best, the best that ever was.

(I'm (mostly) joking, don't @ me)

[Synthesis]

If the maximum skill capability is too high, the obvious solution is to just nerf the max.  Not implement some bizarro-system where everyone looks better than they are, but then you have to beg staff to let you git gud.

Uhm.

Then you'd be in the same boat, but with no capability of reaching the legendary status.  All that would change is the little (text) after the weapon skill.

Normally I'm with you as far as weapon skills branching things, I thought the advanced weapon skills could be moved lower down to be more attainable, but the only place where this still exists is enforcer backstab, right?  (I might be totally mistaken there).  It was stated that such was intentional.

So I'm really confused why that solution is so appealing.  It's literally a string of characters pissing people off if that's a better solution in your head.  If that was just total tongue-in-cheek, ignore this.

I'm not arguing in favor of this.  I guess you missed my point, there.  I think the whole thing is stupid, but it would be -less- stupid to simply nerf the caps, if you were dead-set on implementing something stupid.  You should've quoted Riev's post, to make it less confusing.

Picking Enforcer, Raider, or Fighter already -is- the sacrifice.

While I agree with the sentiment...if you recall, when the new classes came out, I was talking about how too many skills were crammed into too many guilds, and we needed to do away with extended subguilds to balance it out...the heavy combat tier is probably the main reason to keep extended subs in place.  While they sacrifice a lot in the utility skills, those are, in specializations, available through extended subguilds which makes me really not worry about them having skinning and such.  They can get it, if they're just a more martial version of their survivalist counterparts.

Yes. And?  The 2nd-tier classes get all their extra utility shit, and they still get a sub or extended sub, so the existence of subguilds is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  But...at any rate...since the 2nd and 3rd tier classes already have so much utility, the extended subguilds can -really- open things up for them, in terms of versatility, especially for the sneaky and outdoorsy columns.  Also, already having versatility lets the 2nd and 3rd tier classes take subs and extended subs that are niche, without remaining functionally a one-trick pony.

If you paid attention to Riev's hot take, he was suggesting that in order to access the "master" level of the top-tier combat classes, the only sub you could take would be a new "master combatant" subguild, which would be the equivalent of the "custom crafter" subguild, so under that proposal (which I think is terrible, just to be clear) the top-tier classes would have no subguild skills, as a "cost" of being awesome at combat.  So I felt the need to remind everyone that there is -already- a heavy cost.

[mansa]

That being said:  this thread is not complaining about how long it takes. 
This thread, again, is about how it is nigh-impossible to even get it done, if you don't resort to critter grinding. 

I'm considering it the same thing, because the game considers it the same thing.  Weapon Skills do not go up on every failure.  They take into account the offense/defense and other tings.  The game is designed to slow your skill gains as you get more and more proficient.   This is the time gate. 

However, something is off, and players are left to try a billion options in order to maximize the failure rates.   Some players figure out that one trick the doctors hate and it gets patched over time, in order to have a standard skill progression that the producers of the game designed for.

I don't think the "parries-blocks-count-as-fails + longevity gate" solution is the ideal solution. 
...I think it's a compromise solution that accomplishes a few important goals without introducing a lot of weird mechanics or gaminess. 
...It ensures that you -can- attain mastery by playing reasonably, but it also -limits- the number of PCs who will attain it, by setting the bar high. 
...I feel like there probably are not enough players out there who are so sociopathically patient that they would be able to game a longevity gate.

I wish the game designed expectations of average playtime in order to reach certain weapon skills were public, so we could try and see if those aims are aligned with actual players experiences.

[Eyeball]

So, I'm going to assume that the odds of a weapons skill increase upon a valid failure (full miss and sufficiently close in offense/defense) is currently a constant (perhaps based on class). Except lowered if the foe is less skilled.

Here's an idea:

1. Make parries and shield blocks into partial fails (lower chance of a skill increase than a miss).

2. Make the odds of a weapons skill increase upon a fail/partial fail taper rapidly as the level of skill increases (like, asymptotically).

3. Leave the offense/defense clause in.

There would be no plateau. Progress would just get slower and slower.

What do you all think?

[John]

I've mentioned this before, but when we added in the new classes we added in the ability to decouple the branching point from the max skill level of the skill you worked up to branch from.

To give an extreme example, I would *rofl* if you judged Soldier that way.

Unless staff is willing to alert the playerbase of which skills don't branch near the maximum point for that class, mentioning this at all adds nothing to the conversation except to say "I know more then you do so I'm going to laugh at you when you make inaccurate assumptions based on the knowledge available to players. Ner, ner, ner, ner."

[John]

So, I'm going to assume that the odds of a weapons skill increase upon a valid failure (full miss and sufficiently close in offense/defense) is currently a constant (perhaps based on class). Except lowered if the foe is less skilled.

Here's an idea:

1. Make parries and shield blocks into partial fails (lower chance of a skill increase than a miss).

2. Make the odds of a weapons skill increase upon a fail/partial fail taper rapidly as the level of skill increases (like, asymptotically).

3. Leave the offense/defense clause in.

There would be no plateau. Progress would just get slower and slower.

What do you all think?

What is the intended outcome of this change? When do you envision weapon skills reaching their maximum? 1 RL year? 2 RL years? 3 RL years? Assuming average playtimes.

[Eyeball]

So, I'm going to assume that the odds of a weapons skill increase upon a valid failure (full miss and sufficiently close in offense/defense) is currently a constant (perhaps based on class). Except lowered if the foe is less skilled.

Here's an idea:

1. Make parries and shield blocks into partial fails (lower chance of a skill increase than a miss).

2. Make the odds of a weapons skill increase upon a fail/partial fail taper rapidly as the level of skill increases (like, asymptotically).

3. Leave the offense/defense clause in.

There would be no plateau. Progress would just get slower and slower.

What do you all think?

What is the intended outcome of this change? When do you envision weapon skills reaching their maximum? 1 RL year? 2 RL years? 3 RL years? Assuming average playtimes.

For someone starting at novice and spending half of his or her time sparring, maybe:

1. Apprentice after 5 days (total hours played).

2. Journeyman after 10 days.

3. Advanced after 30 days.

4. Master after 100 days.

5. Maxed out after 200 days.

Something along those lines.

[X-D]

I am not bothering with reading past posts.

Parry and block NEED to count as fail. Why...because they are. I failed to do damage to you. Maybe count them as 1/10 of a fail but they need to count.

No argument from coding or any other point applies. Did I do damage? No....was my intent to do damage? Yes...then By definition in any language..I failed. By Arm standards this means you get the chance to improve the skill. By not working this way...as is current...you, Staff are actually going against your stated standards and lying to the playerbase.

[Krath]

So, I'm going to assume that the odds of a weapons skill increase upon a valid failure (full miss and sufficiently close in offense/defense) is currently a constant (perhaps based on class). Except lowered if the foe is less skilled.

Here's an idea:

1. Make parries and shield blocks into partial fails (lower chance of a skill increase than a miss).

2. Make the odds of a weapons skill increase upon a fail/partial fail taper rapidly as the level of skill increases (like, asymptotically).

3. Leave the offense/defense clause in.

There would be no plateau. Progress would just get slower and slower.

What do you all think?

What is the intended outcome of this change? When do you envision weapon skills reaching their maximum? 1 RL year? 2 RL years? 3 RL years? Assuming average playtimes.

For someone starting at novice and spending half of his or her time sparring, maybe:

1. Apprentice after 5 days (total hours played).

2. Journeyman after 10 days.

3. Advanced after 30 days.

4. Master after 100 days.

5. Maxed out after 200 days.

Something along those lines.

I understand what you are getting at here, but if a system like this was implemented, I would quit. Everyone learns at different speeds, even in real life. I think the way it currently is set up works if they add in parries and blocks as XD stated. I would rather have the system we have, than a timed system on when you can advance a level.

[Hauwke]

So, I'm going to assume that the odds of a weapons skill increase upon a valid failure (full miss and sufficiently close in offense/defense) is currently a constant (perhaps based on class). Except lowered if the foe is less skilled.

Here's an idea:

1. Make parries and shield blocks into partial fails (lower chance of a skill increase than a miss).

2. Make the odds of a weapons skill increase upon a fail/partial fail taper rapidly as the level of skill increases (like, asymptotically).

3. Leave the offense/defense clause in.

There would be no plateau. Progress would just get slower and slower.

What do you all think?

What is the intended outcome of this change? When do you envision weapon skills reaching their maximum? 1 RL year? 2 RL years? 3 RL years? Assuming average playtimes.

For someone starting at novice and spending half of his or her time sparring, maybe:

1. Apprentice after 5 days (total hours played).

2. Journeyman after 10 days.

3. Advanced after 30 days.

4. Master after 100 days.

5. Maxed out after 200 days.

Something along those lines.

I understand what you are getting at here, but if a system like this was implemented, I would quit. Everyone learns at different speeds, even in real life. I think the way it currently is set up works if they add in parries and blocks as XD stated. I would rather have the system we have, than a timed system on when you can advance a level.

Except this one isn't gated in time so much as that should be the expected times to reach those levels. At least from my reading of it.

That and the two systems seem identical, to me.

[John]

For someone starting at novice and spending half of his or her time sparring, maybe:

1. Apprentice after 5 days (total hours played).

2. Journeyman after 10 days.

3. Advanced after 30 days.

4. Master after 100 days.

5. Maxed out after 200 days.

Something along those lines.

Advanced at 30 days seems pretty short to me. I worry it would become the new "competent" and people would bitch about the amount of time required to get to "competent".

[RogueGunslinger]

30 days played is a fuck-ton of time invested. You think 700 hours in-game is short? You can already get to advanced weapon skill between like, 3-10 days played depending on your methods. Sooner with a skill bump.

That's like, god forgive me I'm about to try simple math, 8 months of OOC for someone who can log in for 3 hours every single day. Which I think most would agree is a huge investment.

[John]

30 days played is a fuck-ton of time invested. You think 700 hours in-game is short? You can already get to advanced weapon skill between like, 3-10 days played depending on your methods.

Out of interest, do you have to cheat or play poorly to get to advanced in that time frame?

[Namino]

30 days played is a fuck-ton of time invested. You think 700 hours in-game is short? You can already get to advanced weapon skill between like, 3-10 days played depending on your methods.

Out of interest, do you have to cheat or play poorly to get to advanced in that time frame?

Yes.

The fastest I've ever cruised to an advanced weapon branchpoint on legacy warrior was ~18 days played IIRC (which is between advanced and master on the scale above). And I was CHEESIN' that shit in an iso clan where I had nothing to do all day but cheese cheese cheese.