Armageddon General Discussion Board

Over the course of the years, selectable skills have come up far more than once. It has always been viewed as too twinkable and so on.

I may have a solution.

Classes, obviously, are groups of skills that make one great whole. While the actual class versus another class may not even out, what it does do is perform at the highest level in it's selected occupations.

Skills of certian kinds, particularly weapon skills, are much sought after, but are only available to certian classes. Furthermore, it is apparent that without some serious rethinking, the Immortals are typically more than happy to leave it that way.

Which, of course, brings me into the fray.

If skills were ordered in point value instead of simply as skills, and each new character were given a set number of points to use, I think the skill twinkage could be avoided.

For instance ....

Bob has 10 points to use in character creation. He looks the list of skills over and picks a few. Here's the list he sees.

Sword 3
Dagger 2
Hammer 3
Axe 3
Clothesmaking 2
Basketweaving 1
Hide 4
City Sneak 4
Backstab 5
Steal 3
Shield 1
Scan 3
Hunt 2
Listen 3

From this list, he can pick dagger, backstab, and steal for his little thief, or, Hammer, Shield, and Sword with Shield for his warrior, or, Clothesmaking, Basketweaving, Listen, Dagger, and Hunt.

He'll use all of his points in any of those senarios, yet he'll be unable to really twink it out by selecting all the 'right' skills.

Hmmm?

I would love customizable skill sets. There's several dozen reasons why it would be a wonderful change for the game. It would take serious balancing and testing, and some combos would be better than others (But aren't some guild/subguild combos better all the same?), but I think it would be a massive, work-heavy change that would be worth it.

No way. Please.

This would lead to the SOI effect with every merchant that has never seen a sword before having a weapon skill - cause it's useful to have, right..?

The guild system we have right now is restrictive, but also quite nice in another way - it keeps everyone from having the same set of skills and different classes have different caps on how high a skill can go I'd like to keep it that way.
Right now even a fresh 0-day warrior can beat most people around him to pulp, and that's how it should be IMHO. I'm very happy with the way things are at the moment - you'd have to make this way too flexible.

This might work if you still make people select a class at character creation and only allow them to set points to certain skills - a tuluki merchant would put more on woodcrafting than a southern merchant and a northern ranger a little more points in archery and stuff like poisoning while a southern one would go for weaponskills and figthing ability - but they'd still be merchants or rangers or whatever.. That would be kind of cool, actually.

Quote from: "Nao"This would lead to the SOI effect with every merchant that has never seen a sword before having a weapon skill - cause it's useful to have, right..?

Actually, that's precisely what I am tryin gto avoid. You'll note that on SoI, there is no point value assigned skills, so yes, they can collect awesome sets of powers. But on a system where getting that one skill could cost you 4-6 points, I think your options are limited,
[/c
This might work if you still make people select a class at character creation and only allow them to set points to certain skills - a tuluki merchant would put more on woodcrafting than a southern merchant and a northern ranger a little more points in archery and stuff like poisoning while a southern one would go for weaponskills and figthing ability - but they'd still be merchants or rangers or whatever.. That would be kind of cool, actually.[/quote]

That's not bad.

Quote from: "The7DeadlyVenomz"

Quote from: "Nao"This would lead to the SOI effect with every merchant that has never seen a sword before having a weapon skill - cause it's useful to have, right..?

Actually, that's precisely what I am tryin gto avoid. You'll note that on SoI, there is no point value assigned skills, so yes, they can collect awesome sets of powers. But on a system where getting that one skill could cost you 4-6 points, I think your options are limited,

Hmm, I misunderstood you there, I thought you could assign a number of points to a certain skill to set how good you're at it right from the start... The problem I see with that is that you could easily buy a few expensive skills and skip everything else.
They'd just not have as many skills as your average ranger that has a bunch of skills that don't seem too useful, but get a weapon skill, parry, desert navigation, backstab and maybe another skill they want right from the start, if they don't choose anything else. You'd have to hand out a whole bunch of points to allow people to choose a skillset that fits what they currently get by choosing a class and a subclass.

So I still like my idea better... :P

The more I think about it.. the less I don't understand about it.

Would there be a main skills selection list and a subguild selecton list?

This sort of thing could work, but I'm still against it.  In a lot of ways we have customized skills in just the fact that we have guilds and sub guilds.  I might be in favor of more costumization - but we don't have nearly enough skills to make that worth while I think.  Personally I would like to avoid being like SOI every way possible.  A lot of characters there do end up carbon copies of one another and I think the classes we have are really like talking about character specialization.

So for something like this to be implemented it would have to be really really well done.

How would you branch skills?  Well, I'd wager it'd have to work off of the skills themselves...you pick these skills, and from those skiklls branch these skills, period...doesn't matter who you are.

Magickers would suddenly be REALLY weird.  How would you make it so that sorcerers branched the spells they do instead of the spells an elementalist has?

Psionicists, if they do branch from contact and barrier, suddenly wouldn't be able to, because EVERYONE would branch from those skills too if they did.

I'd have to say I'm against this.

The day a crafter merchant doesn't need to hire a hunter to go get shit for him... or that a warrior can quit in the wilderness and unerringly navigate a sandstorm... or that a -good- thief can psionically attack someone... or that a psionicist can cast fireball...

I just don't like the idea, there.  Point weighting or no, this sounds like a great way to imbalance everything.

We actually have quite a few skills, and if we kept the point pool low enough, nobody would turn up a carbon copy of anyone else. You also have to remember that despite the 'perfect' combo, most folks here see a set of skills they need for -their- concept, and that isn't always that 'perfect' combo.

A Merchant, under my system, could be a merchant just like he is now, but, he would have to sacrifice some of his crafting skills or listening skills or something to get anything at all like a weapon skill or something else.

A warrior could actually be a warrior/ranger, but he would have to give up some of that Warrior awesomeness. Maybe he could sneak around town, or in the desert, or maybe he could hide, but no parry, or maybe not all of those weapon skills. The point is, if skills are not given by point on point basis but rather by their actual staff-preceived value, there will be little min-maxxing you can actually do.

What I prpose is that we work out the system here, in this thread, until it is something that most of us agree on. Maybe the Immortals could chime in from time to time as well, giving input on something they do or don't like.

If ya'll are willing, let's work out skills' values, only mundane skills accessable from jump to the classes. Then let's decide on a pool of points that gives both room to play and limits min-maxxing. Let's see if we can't come up with something decent, because I think this system has merit.

I'd say that I didn't think about Magickers or Mindbenders. I'm not sure we could put those in right.

As far as branching goes, while the discovery of a skill is sorta cool, I'd say toss those into the pot.

You would probably have to seperate them

What would you like to be?
Magickal, or normal?

I just don't think you can do this without breaking the game.

Sorry, but I don't.

A halfling void cleric psionicist?
A half-giant void cleric warrior?
A desert elf warrior burglar (which fixes the assassin nerf nicely)?
A thief who can quit in the desert?
A half-elf-who-looks-human merchant hunter?
A mul sorceror who can quit in the desert?

I mean, these are only one or two skills, here in most cases, and my twinkish little brain is good at coming up with ways to break things - but not nearly as good as some people who play, I'm sure.

I totally agree with Davien.  

Ugh, I can't believe I just said that.

Okay.

Magick aside, lets assume magick had it's own skill selection.  So what if it did cost skill points, you'd see people considering what skills are worth more, like maybe rangers saying eh, I ride what do I need wilderness sneak hide for, I'll just trade them in for something really expensive and be the ranger that backstab.  

Picking and chosing skills is not something I'm terribly in favor with.  What might be neater is if we had branch paths for any given class that taking one closed the door to another.  But for even something like that we'd need tons more.

One thing I absolutely love about this game is the number of people (merchants) around town who are pretty much totally incapable of defending themselves, and know it.

Whatever we (you...staffers...) do, let's not lose that aspect of the game.

Quote from: "UnderSeven"I totally agree with Davien.  

Ugh, I can't believe I just said that.

lol.  I will consider my goal to be known as that board asshole that everyone loves to hate to be a success, then.

Quote from: "UnderSeven"
Picking and chosing skills is not something I'm terribly in favor with.  What might be neater is if we had branch paths for any given class that taking one closed the door to another.  But for even something like that we'd need tons more.

I think you'll find that, at significant branch levels, this does work within limits.  The big hot buttons seem to be:

backstab
the ability to quit in the wilderness
hiding/sneaking
offense/defense at highest levels.

And if you nerfed everything, you'd basically be going to something like "choose three subguilds instead of one guild and one subguild"

Quote from: "davien"I just don't think you can do this without breaking the game.

Sorry, but I don't.

A halfling void cleric psionicist?
A half-giant void cleric warrior?
A desert elf warrior burglar (which fixes the assassin nerf nicely)?
A thief who can quit in the desert?
A half-elf-who-looks-human merchant hunter?
A mul sorceror who can quit in the desert?

I mean, these are only one or two skills, here in most cases, and my twinkish little brain is good at coming up with ways to break things - but not nearly as good as some people who play, I'm sure.

Where is the half-giant thief assassin? :wink:

Quote from: "Yokunama"
Where is the half-giant thief assassin? :wink:

That's a mantis-only skillset choice.

I wouldn't want it to replace guilds.

I can see it replacing subguilds without catastrophe.  Subguilds are generally 2-4 skills added to your guild skill-set that give you a little customization, this method could do that but with a little more control over which 2-4 skills you get.

Personally I am absurdly fond of all the nosy skills: climb, hunt, listen, peek, scan, skinning, search, value, and watch.  They aren't all classed as perception skills, but they are skills that can be used for being nosy or for satisfying curiosity, and it is pretty difficult to get them all.  They aren't all necessarily useful, but I like them.  For example I like Value just because I like to know how much stuff weighs, if I have a character without value I end up blowing money taking stuff to be weighed at a scale -- I don't really need to know, I'm just curious about it.  You'll hardly ever find anything with Search, but it is keen to be able to look.  I don't use Hunt for hunting much, but I do like to know who has been around here lately.  I don't want to steal anything, I just like to Peek to see what people have.  I'd like it if there were ways I could add a couple of those skills to a class that didn't have them.




Angela Christine

Definitely no.

There've been threads about this before.

No. Don't care for these sort of systems. I like Arm's current Guild system.

I looked at this and was thinking... no ,but with a few changes maybe.

First off pick you guild... lets say warrior.
Then subguild... thug.

A list of all the skills that YOU could have pops up.
The list is divided into sections as it is alreaddy like now. If you don't know what the skill sections are go play the game and type skills they are all catagorized. I don't rember what the catagorys are all called so ill use my own names. Also the skills the subguilds get give you the skill and they automaticly have 1 point in them unless the subguild is a very focused one like... maybe the crafting ones. Guilds get skill points based off what they should be. So heres what a warrior might get.

15 Combat Skill Points
0 Merchant Skill Points
1 Stealth Skill Point
Etc. ...


As for branching and gaining more points you would send logs and maybe get a skill point in somthing if you charactor shows good RP about it. Branching would be more like sending a log in with your warrior picking up on bows and practicing with them a lot to gain the skill with 1 point starting in it or maybe 2. Also so there is no half-giants with huges clubs sap and then psionics to also blast stun down the skills you can get are all based off guild and subguild like they are now.

I don't care if you don't like it this is just how I would go about if there was a point system.

I looked at this and was thinking... no ,but with a few changes maybe.

First off pick you guild... lets say warrior.
Then subguild... thug.

A list of all the skills that YOU could have pops up.
The list is divided into sections as it is alreaddy like now. If you don't know what the skill sections are go play the game and type skills they are all catagorized. I don't rember what the catagorys are all called so ill use my own names. Also the skills the subguilds get give you the skill and they automaticly have 1 point in them unless the subguild is a very focused one like... maybe the crafting ones. Guilds get skill points based off what they should be. So heres what a warrior might get.

15 Combat Skill Points
0 Merchant Skill Points
1 Stealth Skill Point
Etc. ...


As for branching and gaining more points you would send logs and maybe get a skill point in somthing if you charactor shows good RP about it. Branching would be more like sending a log in with your warrior picking up on bows and practicing with them a lot to gain the skill with 1 point starting in it or maybe 2. Also so there is no half-giants with huges clubs sap and then psionics to also blast stun down the skills you can get are all based off guild and subguild like they are now.

I don't care if you don't like it this is just how I would go about if there was a point system.

Too much work for the staff, I say, valakas.  I'd prefer automated branching in all forms.  We use code here, as we're playing a MUD not a MUSH.

When I was working on my mud my idea was class-based but far more broader then just several classes it went something like this at character creation.

Welcome to Null mud, choose your primary guild below.

Stealth | Combat | Magic | Special

From here you have to choose what you want your character to specialize in.
So if they choose combat.

You have chosen Combat, now select your primary class.

Fighter | Brute | Ranger | Archer | Swordsman | Axeman | Spearman |
Soldier | Mercenary

Now you're thinking, wait a minute, so how do the skills get set and all that? Well it wasn't fully coded but the concept was there. Fighter was your basic fighter, he wasn't nothing special, he got most combat skills but set at an average cap. Brute was a raging type class, they got choppers, bash, kick, etc. So and so forth, each class had it's own separate types of specializations, for example.

The swordsman started with only slashing, disarm, and a few other skills. But his cap was the highest in the game with such skills, therefore if you pick this class it's restrictive (in that you HAVE to use a sword) but also it's balanced. Same goes axeman and spearman.

Or you could always just pick the normal fighter class which gives you most all combat skills but at an average number cap. A max fighter will never beat a max swordsman in straight up melee if the swordsman has a sword, but the fighter might have archery, kick, bash, throw. Etc. Whereas the swordsman has to be in melee to be effective. There was also going to be a secondary class selection much like subguilds on armageddon. Except the secondary classes were mainly crafting skills.

And the Stealth and Magic classes were much the same, the exception being that Magical classes were based around elements like Silt, Sand, Water. Etc. And no one was much better then the other except in its spells.

-RM

Quote from: "RunningMountain"Stealth | Combat | Magic | Special

If I choose 'special', do I get a coded mudsex skill?

So, a stupid question, then...

What is it that you are looking for that you can't do with the existent guild/subguild system?

What, exactly, is it that you are trying to make that you can't?

I am not trying to make anything. I'm ok with the current skillsets, to a point. I just like the in-depth customization provided by a points system. Is Armageddon broken? No. But neither is the new stat change, and yet it's going in. Classes are defining.

For instance, what about an assassin who uses swords instead of daggers? Need Imm help. What about the Archer thief, who actually knows well how to use a bow but has always lived in the city and so knows city shit and not wilderness shit....What about the warrior/guard? Guard sucks with no listen. And so on and so forth....

These things can all happen with Staff interaction, so no, it's not impossible, and no I don't think Armageddon is broken.

More people support the idea now than when it was brought up several years ago. That's the idea, I guess.

Sooner or later, I think Armageddon will switch over to a skill-selection rather than classes, and when it goes in, it will rock, and you will all grumble and complain and whine about it, but you'll get used to it. And yes, it will be over Sanvean's dead body and Morg's grey hairs, and so on, but it will.

Who said, two years ago, that we'd ever see even the inkling of stat ordering or choosing?

Thanks for your thoughts in this thread. I'll flesh it out better next time, maybe, next year. :)

And now, for another long post about the other idea I have in my head ... combat styles ... oooo.

Sooner or later, I have no doubt that Armageddon will cave in to enough special player requests that it will look exactly like Harshlands, but with more code.

However, I don't necessarily agree.

I don't see why something like this warrants attention if you are capable of specilizing your characters with special apps or augmenting the already standard guild sets with subguild options.

I'd be happier with different combos of subguilds myself.

[/shameless plug for more subguilds]

For those complaining about "carbon copy characters"

If my warrior choses sub-guild Guard... um How does it make my character stat/skill wise different from all the other warrior/guards?

I'm sorry I just thought that arguement was silly, when a class based system forces people to be a carbon copy.

I'd be fine with picking a main guild, then using the system for which this thread is about.

That would solve branching, give randomness, make me happy, all of that.

Instead of having 144 possible combinations for the main, non magicking guilds, we could have...A lot.

Editted to add: I think that would be awesome. My thought gears are turning. I didn't know they could.

Quote from: "Wykydtronn"For those complaining about "carbon copy characters"

If my warrior choses sub-guild Guard... um How does it make my character stat/skill wise different from all the other warrior/guards?

I'm sorry I just thought that arguement was silly, when a class based system forces people to be a carbon copy.

I think what's meant by carbon copy is that -all- characters turn out with similar or the same skill sets, maybe different crafting skills cause you've got a slot to fill. On arm, thought he guild system, thieves and merchants and warriors all have VERY different skill sets, in a system where you can choose your skilsl without any restriction they'd be very similar.

ahh granted, but with the right point value assigned to each skill, it would all even out.

Everyone reading this forum has at lest got some basic unstanding of computers, and reading/writing skills.  Does that mean we are carbon copies? No, because skills like accounting, construction, soldiering, or any other profession I could think of, take a long time to acquire.  Such could be represented by the cost of taking such a skill/skill set.

With the right point value on the right skills, I doubt this would have any effect but then again.  They may just turn out like their respective classes anyways, which makes this system a whole lot of effort for nothing.

But I've not even scratched the surface of all the skills and given that I never played a merchant before, I'm not sure how all the crafting skills work.

Good idea.  And yeah I see a lot of people complaining about carbon copies, every class branches the same stuff regardless of who you are.  Those are carbon copies, having a high degree of what a character can select as their own is called *gasp * origional, and more realistic as some of you beat on relentlessly, realism this realism that.  Yeah when I was born I picked basketweaver as my class IRL.  Get a lot of complains about twinks, twinks are everywhere you go people, might as well face it, and quit making it the argueable point of every discussion you don't like.  People twink everything given a chance.  So yeah if you want customization, origionality, more character debth and involvement, this would be a positive step forward.  But I would never expect to see it implemented, I mean shit, we still don't even have ASNI optional.

Quote from: "FightClub"Good idea.  And yeah I see a lot of people complaining about carbon copies, every class branches the same stuff regardless of who you are.  Those are carbon copies...

Very true, those are carbon copies.  But the idea of a class (with subguild/race options to make them more unique, don't forget that) is that it's a somewhat balanced and intentional carbon copy.  The great thing about it is though since the same options are open to everyone the classes can be designed to branch as they increase in power and therefore become more specialized while gaining new skills.  And if the classes aren't balanced then c'est la vie, they were constructed by IMMs to suit a specific type of PC. (Note:  This whole debate doesn't even begin to apply to magickers, consider what I said relevant for the normal classes)

The problem with choosing your own skills is min/maxing.  As of right now we can pick what we can, potentially special app for a different skill, but we can't sit down and go through all the skills we want.  There is no "secret formula" for a badass PC on Arm because we're given classes.  On a MUD where you pick your own skills there is a high temptation to always pick certain skills because they simply are either the best and/or fit your play style.  For arm I can imagine skills like that being listen, scan, a weapon skill and parry which are useful for any PC.

I like that merchants and mages have absolutely no weapon skills.  I like that warriors start off dominating other classes in combat and I'm even beginning to warm up to the idea of warriors having very little use outside of combat.  I like that scan is a relatively rare skill.  To overhaul the class system is a BIG project, it would probably require overhauling every skill too to try to balance it out.  Too much work when better things could be done.

I'd really love a combination of the two.

Where we got rid of the subguilds and went with main guilds. This way, we wouldn't have to worry about how things branch, and we wouldn't have to worry about the merchant's with weapons kills, or the magicker/warriors.

We would have our main, balanced guilds and we would have lists of skills we learned before we started playing our Pc. We wouldn't have to worry about them branching and there would be an infinite number of subguilds.

I would love that system, love it a lot.

I have to say, I do not understand many arguments about this idea.

Some say, what if a merchant guild takes a sword skill, something that a merchant wouldnt have ever really done? Too much possible twinkage.

I find that whole argument is flawed, because with a proposed system there 'would' be no merchants. There would be no warriors, no thieves, no rangers

There would be people, who based on their background and what they want their characters to be, pick the skills that go along the concepts within their heads. If they want to be merchants, they'll pick merchant skills, if they want to be something else ... they'll pick something else.

The whole concept about magicker/mindbender and the whole karma thing makes this system complicated. Aswell as mini traits that arent skill related, such as being able to quit in a desert, and so on. Karma can unlock more and more skills with Karma.

If I wanted to play SOI I'd go play SOI. It's the differences between the two that I like better about Arm.

Leave it alone.

What I would prefer to see is something more along the lines of being able to tweak current classes and choose from a small number of skills to add to the guild's main skills

I.e. Ranger-
Pick one of the following:
1)Disarm
2)Tanning
3)Guard

Pick one more of the following
1)Extra high climb
2)Extra high archery
3)Extra high dual wield

Nothing major, but enough to give your character a certain focus/direction that makes it a bit more different than other classes.

Adding to a long list of proposals...

I'd like to see main guilds remain the same, but all subguilds removed.

Instead, all current subguild skills would be pooled together and assigned point values.  At character creation, you would have a certain number of points, and you could choose freely among all the possible subguild skills.

This would let you customize much better than the current subguild system, but would also avoid the twinkery problems.  Subguild skills would remain the same as they currently are: unbranchable (unless your main guild has the skill anyway) and capped low (again, unless your main guild receives the skill).  With the point system, you'd be able to choose 3-6 of them, depending on their staff-determined values, and you'd be on your merry way.

Quote from: "Synthesis"Adding to a long list of proposals...

I'd like to see main guilds remain the same, but all subguilds removed.

Instead, all current subguild skills would be pooled together and assigned point values.  At character creation, you would have a certain number of points, and you could choose freely among all the possible subguild skills.

This would let you customize much better than the current subguild system, but would also avoid the twinkery problems.  Subguild skills would remain the same as they currently are: unbranchable (unless your main guild has the skill anyway) and capped low (again, unless your main guild receives the skill).  With the point system, you'd be able to choose 3-6 of them, depending on their staff-determined values, and you'd be on your merry way.

I think this would be alright. There aren't any twinky or unbalancing combinations with those skills anyway. Would be cool to round out a pc with more customization without people making disarming rangers and swordsmaster merchants.

The balance of the guild system with a bit more of free creation where the subguild skills are concerned.

.... *is speechless* Moving on.
I would simply die, if I could have search, club_making, armor repair, and hunt.

Quote from: "MooKeTTe"
NONONONONO AND NO

NO TF2 NO TFC:S NONONONOONO

NONONONONONON
NONONONONONONONO


NONONONO





-----> NO <------

I like the idea of customizable subguilds with certain classes barred from
certain skills without imm intervention.

I would like to stick with the main classes, however.

Why does every change make the game 'more like SOI'?

I think this is a somewhat baseless argument. This system might not be the key ... there may never be a key to offering truly customizable classes without worrying about that 'twink' factor, but instead of just complaining about 'SoI' and how we seem to be 'changing the game', why not just say no or offer a better idea?

The more customization available, the better. If it roves into a bad area, then it's no good, but not everything new does that.

Quote from: "The7DeadlyVenomz"Why does every change make the game 'more like SOI'?

I think this is a somewhat baseless argument. This system might not be the key ... there may never be a key to offering truly customizable classes without worrying about that 'twink' factor, but instead of just complaining about 'SoI' and how we seem to be 'changing the game', why not just say no or offer a better idea?

The more customization available, the better. If it roves into a bad area, then it's no good, but not everything new does that.

Because this particular suggestion is the way that SOI does it. And it's one of the reasons I don't play that game and why I play Arm.

I'm going to mention it every time someone proposes a change to the way something is done in SOI. You know why? Because the way Arm currently does them is my personal preference. The way SOI does them -isn't-. If all those differences were changed. I will lose the -only- mud I enjoy playing.

Arm has -everything- I want as far as most mechanics the way it -is-.

And yet, if there is an option to completely by-pass the new system, as there is in the stat ordering system and would be most likely in any skill selection change, why would it matter to you? How in the name of Tektolnes would it affect you?

I understand the twink arguments, because nobody, including me, wants this game to degenerate into a RPI H&S. But I sometimes think that some of you worry so much about twinks that the potential benefits of any change are out-weighed by the miniscule chance of rampant twinkism.

If you like the old way, and you have the ability to use the old system, then that should solve your opposition to the idea were it to be implemented in a fashion that really did not give it an edge on the current classes.

Quote from: "The7DeadlyVenomz"And yet, if there is an option to completely by-pass the new system, as there is in the stat ordering system and would be most likely in any skill selection change, why would it matter to you? How in the name of Tektolnes would it affect you?

I understand the twink arguments, because nobody, including me, wants this game to degenerate into a RPI H&S. But I sometimes think that some of you worry so much about twinks that the potential benefits of any change are out-weighed by the miniscule chance of rampant twinkism.

If you like the old way, and you have the ability to use the old system, then that should solve your opposition to the idea were it to be implemented in a fashion that really did not give it an edge on the current classes.

It does affect me because it changes the playing environment for me. I have to -deal- with all the other stat-ordering, min-maxing, skill optimizing twinks. It's no longer a level playing field unless I do the same. And it really....really....sucks ass...

...waita minute. By arguing that you have to deal with stat-maxxers, you are achknowledging your concern with skills.

So, you're telling me that because a PC wanted to create a sword-packing warrior who could hide and sneak in the city, but lost parry and kick, it unevens the playing field for you, who retains parry and kick but can't sneak and hide?

Perhaps if skills could be chosen from an intelligent system, so that while a character just choosing Hide for the first time paid 5 points for it, it could cost that Warrior 10 pts.

You think that irons it out more for you?

I'm not really battling you view-point. I'm trying to get the why I hate out of you, not just the I hate. I feel like while your concerns are valid, your hateit, don't wan't it, no matter what attitude might not be best for optimization of such a system.

Also, I don't give a fuck about SoI. I wanted stats and skill selection before I even heard of SoI. So, ya see, this isn't a push to SoIalize Armageddon. It's a push to perfect our character creation options.

And I disagree that this is perfecting it.

The system now is balanced. Each guild does what it does and does that best. What's wrong with that?

And the only guild that is hard to play off as another is the magicker guilds. I've passed most of the rest off as others a few times. Guild sniffers bug me...but I think I'm good at dealing with them in such a way as to prevent them from sniffing me out guild-wise.

Like I said earlier in this thread. I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the main guilds and pooling the subguild skills, including the caps into a list that was point based to choose from for your secondary skills.
This would -not- include uncapped, main guild-only skills.

I don't want to see non-warrior specialized types disarming. I don't want to see non-assassin specialized types backstabbing. That sort of thing. I don't want to see merchants sword-fighting and doing well at it. They shouldn't be.
The original idea would turn people into a sort of jackofalltrades guild. Where anyone can be doing anything...a smattering of this "specialty" a smattering of that "specialty"...that makes no sense. You either specialize in one area and suck at most other things or you suck at alot of things.

I think that is best also.

Does it make in logical sense for my ranger to have archery? When hes lived in the south his whole life?  There is not many bows and arrows down there.

Now have you ever try to get a iso solo ranger started in the south?  Its nearly fucking impossiable.

And anyone who feeds me this "Join a clan" or "Armageddon is harsh" can eat a fucking pine cone.

What I wouldn't do just have to have just a tiny bit better skill with swords. Is that too much to ask?  A chance to not get raped by everything in the red desert, because my idiot ranger doesn't know which end of the pointy stick goes where?

Quote from: "Wykydtronn"Does it make in logical sense for my ranger to have archery? When hes lived in the south his whole life?  There is not many bows and arrows down there.

Now have you ever try to get a iso solo ranger started in the south?  Its nearly fucking impossiable.

And anyone who feeds me this "Join a clan" or "Armageddon is harsh" can eat a fucking pine cone.

What I wouldn't do just have to have just a tiny bit better skill with swords. Is that too much to ask?  A chance to not get raped by everything in the red desert, because my idiot ranger doesn't know which end of the pointy stick goes where?

You can get bows and arrows in the south, they are made from bone and chitin instead of wood for the most part. And with all the dangerous beasts it would make -more- sense to take them down with arrows from a distance instead of getting up close and having your head torn off.

Quote from: "Wykydtronn"Does it make in logical sense for my ranger to have archery? When hes lived in the south his whole life?  There is not many bows and arrows down there.

Your ranger doesn't start with archery.  Your ranger starts with the potential to learn archery.  You still have to practice it, and if IC circumstances continue to deny you a bow and arrows, then you won't have archery.

QuoteWhat I wouldn't do just have to have just a tiny bit better skill with swords.

Would you find a teacher and practice?

Hmmmm.

So, let's graduate (for now, never will I ever let my dreams die forever) to sub-guild pooling.

So, I log on, create Roi the Warrior, and then am asked to either select a secondary-skill set, or to individually select the secondary skills I want.

You're assigned a point pool with which to do this. I'll assume that giving different skills different point values is a good idea?

Here's a question. I still can't create a sword packing thief with this system, and there is no good IC reason that I couldn't. So, on the heels of that thought...

Instead of receiving selectable skills during class selection, selection of a class could give you things like, parry from the start, quit-outside from the start, steal at a high cap, etc....you see? Instead of classes dictating a list of skills, it inpart benifits, like higher caps, the ability to do certian things, and in the case of karma classes only, literal skills.

So, you select Ranger, you get quit-outside, higher archery cap, high skin cap, high hunt cap, and so many points.

Warrior, you get parry, disarm, and bash from the start, all non-selectable skills, high weapon % caps, and so many points to spend deciding on other skills.

Whatcha think about that?

Let me add that because the class Warrior would be geared to what they currently are, choosing other skills would actually impart penalties on them instead of min-maxxing, because the caps would still be in effect, and they would get a lot of skills with no bonus at all because they are a class not normally skilled in so forth and so on.

Maybe.
Like you were explaining there would have to be certain ones that are not pickable under any circumstances other than if you choose the type that is going to primarily specialize in that area. Can't have any non-warriors maxxing out weapon skills, disarming, bashing, parrying from the start....that sort of thing.
No backstabbing non-assassins...etc...

I'll admit that I'd be far less opposed to removing subguilds in favor of some sort of skill-buy system.  Don't change the primary guilds at all.  No buyable skills that aren't already in a subguild either.

I'm not in favor of having to buy skills in any way, shape, or form. I'd be more open to "Pick a few of these skills."

Quote from: "Maybe42or54"I'm not in favor of having to buy skills in any way, shape, or form. I'd be more open to "Pick a few of these skills."

What's the difference?

If you had to buy them there is going to be that one skill everyone has because they all had one point extra. That is kind of annoying.

You have to limit skill picks somehow, though, right?

Or do you mean like
pick one of the following: slashing weapons, bludgeoning weapons, piercing weapons.  
Pick two of the following: basketweaving, tanning, dyeing, toolmaking
?

Quote from: "Marauder Moe"I'll admit that I'd be far less opposed to removing subguilds in favor of some sort of skill-buy system.  Don't change the primary guilds at all.  No buyable skills that aren't already in a subguild either.

Then how can I make the sword-packing thief?

I'm thinking that any skill that you can get that your class does not have set caps for will come with an automatic 50% cap.

So, the Warrior (coming with bash, parry and disarm, high sword, axe, club, kick, and dagger caps) who didn't take Axes and chose to give up that and Daggers for the sneak skill would only have a 50% chance, ever, of doing it right.

The Ranger (coming with outside-quit, scan and listen, high flee, rescue, hunt, etc caps) who decided that kick was a good choice for his character would only ever have a 50% chance of doing it.

The Thief (with the good dagger cap, steal, giggle, etc caps) with the sword will never be better than average with it.

I think that sub-guilds pretty much make this distinction anyway.

Quote from: "Marauder Moe"You have to limit skill picks somehow, though, right?

Or do you mean like
pick one of the following: slashing weapons, bludgeoning weapons, piercing weapons.  
Pick two of the following: basketweaving, tanning, dyeing, toolmaking
?

Yes, something like that.

Quote from: "The7DeadlyVenomz"Then how can I make the sword-packing thief?

Make a warrior.  Pickpocket is already a subguild skill.

Weapon skills are too powerful for subguilds, even with a cap.  Backstab is too powerful, even with a cap.

What would the point be in taking a skill like sneak or hide if it never worked more than half the time?

Some abilities (sneak, hide, bash) are only really useful if you can count on them working reliably. Others (hunt, listen, etc) don't necessarily have to go off first time every time to be incredibly handy.

There is no class/sub combination that allows me to make a city sneak/hide warrior.

Pickpocket is not a thief. I said a thief that uses swords.

Weapon skills are -not- too powerful for subguilds ... we already have a subguild with sap as a skill. What the heck is the difference between sap and backstab?

That is an extremely valid point that 7DV just made.

sap is ungodly powerful.  Unbelievably.  Just like backstab.

Sap does not kill flat out, and there for gives more RP possibilities... but still, it instazonks an opponent if you're strong/good enough... and most sap'ers take a hefty strength race.

Quote from: "Nao"
The guild system we have right now is restrictive, but also quite nice in another way - it keeps everyone from having the same set of skills and different classes have different caps on how high a skill can go I'd like to keep it that way.

You know, I always wished that it wouldn't just cap, but slow--become like twice as hard to progress after a certain point.  I also wish if you kept preforming a skill to the point you had like 10 percent into it, it would pop up in your skill list at 1 percent. :)

I've always been fond of background questionairres. Where depending on how you answer each question skill levels are asigned to you, the questions are check against your BG and the questions are always architected to avoid specifc combination.

Though, most people I talk to hate them.

I only skimmed this.. but.. although this idea might avoid twinking, I think in the end you'll still end up with "cookie-cutter classes" like you do in games like World of Warcraft, where people eventually figure out the most advantageous skillset for what they want to do. Is this a bad thing? I don't know.. but I rather like how things are setup now.

I've never seen much harm in doing something similar to this.

Though the guild/subguild system is pretty neat, I've always thought it'd be better to have the ability to swap out one or two skills in some manner, to better satisfy a pc's needs. For example, a desert wanderer screams ranger simply for survival skills, but the vision calls for someone skilled in hand to hand combat rather than a hunter, so archery is dropped in exchange for parry and hunt in exchange for disarm.

Some class-specific skills and abilities would be protected, so you have to be an assassin to backstab, a ranger to quit out in the wilds, a warrior to have those high skill caps, a magicker to... magick. Branches become obsolete except for powers that grow off each other, as with a magicker or psionicist.

Point is, there's a lot of ways this could be done without ruining either the simple flavor of char creation mechanics or the unbalance of the game, and if anything it could prevent certain forms of ooc twinkery.

I think it is actually less work for the staff to accept customized starting skillsets proposals as special apps than to try to balance the entire skill system against a point valuation.

I don't see any substantial (IMO :)) gain from this change, and it also makes the game far more intimidating to new players.

QuoteFor example, a desert wanderer screams ranger simply for survival skills, but the vision calls for someone skilled in hand to hand combat rather than a hunter, so archery is dropped in exchange for parry and hunt in exchange for disarm.

Fuck that. The day we have disarming rangers or parrying newbie non-warriors is the day I quit.

This is a perfect example of why the guild system is great as it is.

Why not allow all characters have all non magical skills. You want a skill? you practice it in one way or the other untill it shows up in your skill list. When will we do it, whether in an hour or in a year, is up to GMs to choose, as long as it 'does' happen.

Then people's skill sets will not consist of what they chose, but what they had the opportunity, time, resources, and capable teachers to learn themselves.

Add that with an ability to get 60/40/20/10% skills of the starting guild in the beginning, and offer each character a x% cap possibly learned per year, and y% cap possibly learned by the character 'ever'. And you're golden.

Your ranger doesnt have access to bows and arrows? Then it wont ever use a bow, and it will never show up in the skill list, nor will it get better. Your ranger got into a wrong crowd, and life made him steal? Soon enough sneak, hide, and pickpocket creeps into your skill set. Life of crime is proving to be good, and 5 years pass? And your ranger ends up with some useless ranger skills that are not really trained for they were never used, and some superb pickpocket skills.

Finally ... the IC events of your chara made your character into more of a pickpocket, then a ranger, but is it truly a bad thing? Afterall, if the guilds are locked like they are now, that means that characters are limited in their reaction to IC events. Something that guild choices 'supposedly' shouldnt have an inpact on.