What would you think about having age effect the level of skill you start out with when entering the game with your new character?
So a 17 year old thief would have lower starting skills then a 30 year old thief. I'll leave how much of a difference there would be to the staff, but it seems fair enough and reasonable enough to have.
What about making this kind of progression in skills decided with one karma? No karma? More karma?
I say no, at least for so long as age penalties to stats are so high.
I would be alright with it I suppose, but I would want it to be a mild modifier.
Basically, if someone starts a character at age 17 and plays them until they're 30 ... I would like for their 30 year old PC's skills to be about 100000000000 times better than someone who just started playing a 30 year old.
IMO, if you wanted to have a 30 year old thief with higher skills than a 17 year old, you could just send in a Special App and have a few of the character's skills tweaked a bit.
I'd hate to see a sudden influx of 150 year old elves.
Quote from: Riev on January 25, 2009, 12:58:16 PM
IMO, if you wanted to have a 30 year old thief with higher skills than a 17 year old, you could just send in a Special App and have a few of the character's skills tweaked a bit.
I'd hate to see a sudden influx of 150 year old elves.
Skills are already so easy to raise that this isn't even a minor concern, in my opinion.
Any kind of 'boost' that the staff would reasonably give based on age could probably be covered in about 15-20 hours of IC training. Maybe a day or two if you're really being lethargic about it.
Ages 25 - 30
Plus 4%
Ages 31 - 38
Plus 7%
Ages 39 - 46
Plus 10%
Ages 47 - 56
Plus 12%
Ages 57 - 62
Plus 15%
I think that's fine.
I think most skills start so low that a percentage increase of that size would often amount to less than 1 point.
Quote from: Good Gortok on January 25, 2009, 05:56:16 PM
I think most skills start so low that a percentage increase of that size would often amount to less than 1 point.
Well, I meant that if your SLASHING WEAPONS starts at 5%, then if you're 26 it would start at 9%
Oh, right. Well, I don't see why not.
Quote from: Synthesis on January 25, 2009, 05:48:38 PM
Skills are already so easy to raise that this isn't even a minor concern, in my opinion.
Any kind of 'boost' that the staff would reasonably give based on age could probably be covered in about 15-20 hours of IC training. Maybe a day or two if you're really being lethargic about it.
Agreed. I can't see this really worth the effort.
And I don't think anyone would call you a bad RPer, if you made a 40 year old ex-caravan guard, and decided to work on skills for a little while before starting to network in the Gaj.
Young characters already get stats that border on stupidly low; penalizing their skills as well by means of giving older characters bonuses isn't an idea I'm thrilled with.
Quote from: Fathi on January 25, 2009, 07:09:44 PM
Young characters already get stats that border on stupidly low; penalizing their skills as well by means of giving older characters bonuses isn't an idea I'm thrilled with.
Stat changes during birthdays have changed this - though I still think the harshness of young characters could use a tweak.
Quote from: mansa on January 25, 2009, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: Fathi on January 25, 2009, 07:09:44 PM
Young characters already get stats that border on stupidly low; penalizing their skills as well by means of giving older characters bonuses isn't an idea I'm thrilled with.
Stat changes during birthdays have changed this - though I still think the harshness of young characters could use a tweak.
Yeah, the birthday thing has definitely helped. I just don't agree with the notion that characters in the late teens and early twenties appear to be just as harshly penalized in some stats as characters in the thirteen to sixteen year old range. And the birthdays don't really help all that much if you start out -that- far behind everybody else.
I'm ambivalent on it. It'll hurt young characters, but players usually pick young characters for a challenge, as well as lasting longer, and the newbies usually pick older characters for a lack of challenge, just to get into the game. It's a great feeling for a new guy to know that he's doing better than established characters.
But if it is going to be implemented, the skill advantage should be very minor - just enough to give him an edge, but not enough to give him an advantage. Like crafters wouldn't break as much things, thieves wouldn't fail basic checks, a warrior should on average win more times, but not win without a scratch.
Quote from: SMuz on January 25, 2009, 09:43:03 PM
I'm ambivalent on it. It'll hurt young characters, but players usually pick young characters for a challenge, as well as lasting longer, and the newbies usually pick older characters for a lack of challenge, just to get into the game. It's a great feeling for a new guy to know that he's doing better than established characters.
But if it is going to be implemented, the skill advantage should be very minor - just enough to give him an edge, but not enough to give him an advantage. Like crafters wouldn't break as much things, thieves wouldn't fail basic checks, a warrior should on average win more times, but not win without a scratch.
I'm not sure this is a fact. I suspect that age is more a matter of aesthetics than anything else,
especially for fresh, new players.
Quote from: staggerlee on January 25, 2009, 09:56:39 PM
Quote from: SMuz on January 25, 2009, 09:43:03 PM
I'm ambivalent on it. It'll hurt young characters, but players usually pick young characters for a challenge, as well as lasting longer, and the newbies usually pick older characters for a lack of challenge, just to get into the game. It's a great feeling for a new guy to know that he's doing better than established characters.
But if it is going to be implemented, the skill advantage should be very minor - just enough to give him an edge, but not enough to give him an advantage. Like crafters wouldn't break as much things, thieves wouldn't fail basic checks, a warrior should on average win more times, but not win without a scratch.
I'm not sure this is a fact. I suspect that age is more a matter of aesthetics than anything else, especially for fresh, new players.
I would suspect newbies would go for the grizzled badass warrior. So anywhere from 25-30 human warrior.
Stats wise, 16-22 year olds seem to be treated as if they were 10-12.
With monkey DNA.
Quote from: Clearsighted on January 25, 2009, 10:22:51 PM
Stats wise, 16-22 year olds seem to be treated as if they were 10-12.
With monkey DNA.
Sounds like the typical highschool/college student to me ...
Um, no? IMHO, it's good enough as it is. Also, like Synthesis said, it's easy enough to gain skills in the game, unless you're only going to be playing casually. Also, I don't think karma should affect anything. Even if I had lots of karma, I would still love to play from the bottom up.
Quote from: Clearsighted on January 25, 2009, 10:22:51 PM
Stats wise, 16-22 year olds seem to be treated as if they were 10-12.
With monkey DNA.
Hardly. I think all my (human) characters are below 22 lately. Reroll solves a lot of problems. As far as I recall..
Char1, 19-y.o: average, average, poor, good
Rerolled char1: exceptional, very good, poor, good
Char2, 18-y.o: average, average, poor, below average
Rerolled char2: average, exceptional, above average, above average
Although it kinda annoys me that my characters all have fairly low strength, even when I set it as a main priority.
Perhaps for a reason, but I don't believe rerolls currently account for stat prioritization.
I wouldn't have any issue with this idea. I've always thought skills should be affected by age. As far as I am concerned, the changes in stats for age offsets potentially high levels of skill.
Quote from: Zalanthan on January 30, 2009, 07:43:24 PM
Perhaps for a reason, but I don't believe rerolls currently account for stat prioritization.
This is incorrect, rerolls do account stat prioritization.