Nice.
I should say I'm not that impressed this time. It seems to have a chance of failure in determining your skill, like, is my contact 'orgasmic' or 'awful'? I believe you get better in time to determine your skill level, but I have to spam 'skills' for that? Really..
- It must be made clear how you improve your skill in determining your skill levels.
- The skill for that shouldn't improve in the traditional way - failure. It would just lead to people typing up timers to type 'skills' once in X minutes. I already have set one up for myself because I hate to see how awful my character is, possibly because of low wisdom. Maybe age, or playing time should be the determining factor?
- Some of the terms used to describe skill levels should change indeed. Like, is "wtf" good or bad?
But with some changes, it's a good addition. Not necessarily needed, but a good addition nonetheless.
I'm a bit confused, actually. To use your example, would we see something like... Goes to check in game.
Nevermind... lol
Edited to add: Erdlu what are you talking about?
Edited again: Rofl now I get what you're talking about. <facepalm>
Oh. Wait.
No.....Is this an april fools joke?
Sadness.
I was really excited.
Edit: Though, BeeKnees and Sux0rs are great :).
peachy keen ;D
When I first read this, I thought, "Oh boy! It's like Christmas!"
But then I logged on and saw Pikachu....
Now I'm off to talk people to death and climax with my "Obliterating Sirihish" and my "Orgasmic <redacted> accent" ;D
The descriptors seem to be completely random, because I've got "you suck" for skills I know I've maxed, and "awesome" for skills I've never even used. Also, they change every time you type > skills.
(Yes, I know it's a joke.)
Damn. I was hoping I had super-demonic skill levels.
Wtf are you guys talking about? I checked it out, all I got are numbers in parenthesis and they seem to be the same each time. My sirihish is 100.
edit: I am disappoint. April fools.
Last years joke was awesome.. Didn't like this one..
I'm somewhat surprised no one has ever asked for skill levels to be revealed. Has anyone ever asked for this before? If not I think we get to pat ourselves on the back.
Quote from: jalden on April 02, 2010, 01:56:56 AMI'm somewhat surprised no one has ever asked for skill levels to be revealed. Has anyone ever asked for this before? If not I think we get to pat ourselves on the back.
There are people that remember back to when skill levels
WERE shown. It has been asked to be brought back, in a system not unlike this joke... but with less ridiculous and random wackidoo than this joke used.
Quote from: spawnloser on April 02, 2010, 02:08:17 AM
Quote from: jalden on April 02, 2010, 01:56:56 AMI'm somewhat surprised no one has ever asked for skill levels to be revealed. Has anyone ever asked for this before? If not I think we get to pat ourselves on the back.
There are people that remember back to when skill levels WERE shown. It has been asked to be brought back, in a system not unlike this joke... but with less ridiculous and random wackidoo than this joke used.
Honestly. I'd like a system like this (less wack) as anyone that been doing it for a while, would be able to gauge their skills roughly.
And the ranges could be wide. Though eh.
Still trying to get used to Arm again as is, at least this character isn't 5 minutes in and dead! Haha..
I liked the joke, but a part of me wants to see it go in for real.
The skill levels shouldn't be too accurate. A scale of poor to AI is more accurate than, say, the (shamelessly stolen from RPI Engine MUDs) scale of Novice - Familiar - Adroit - Master.
I don't think it would foster overtraining if that is the concern. With an inaccurate scale, you will remain a Novice or Familiar for a long time. Additional training in the short term would only change things very slowly and behind the scenes. If you wanted to train just to get from one level to the next out of four levels, you would have to train a lot - and besides that, it's well known that - actually, no it isn't, nevermind.
Consider it in present terms - we really have three levels we can see as it is: New PC Skill, Branched, Mastered (for merchants with crafts). It is just unlabeled. What is the problem, really, with putting out skill levels in the vaguest way possible?
I'll admit, I got excited until I logged in and saw the joke, but it would be a slippery slope to bring skill levels back in any form.
So, it appears to not be a joke after all. I dig it. ;D
I think it'll be helpful to role-play. I've discovered that I'm presenting some skills as being greater than I have, and others as being less. Good for adjusting that.
Yup, apparently not completely a joke. Novice - Apprentice - Journeyman - Advanced - Master? Not bad. I don't feel strongly about this change for or against, so nothing much else to add.
IT'S REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YAY!
Meh, it is not new anyway.
I preferred when it was turned off but not a big deal, tells me nothing I did not already know anyway.
Quote from: spawnloser on April 02, 2010, 12:17:12 PM
Novice - Apprentice - Journeyman - Advanced - Master? Not bad.
I'm PKin' the first fool that uses these words in-game, though. As in:
The tall, muscular man says, in sirihish,
"I'm advanced at peircing weapons but only journeyman at disarm."But it's a toothsome change, otherwise.
Quote from: spawnloser on April 02, 2010, 12:17:12 PM
Yup, apparently not completely a joke. Novice - Apprentice - Journeyman - Advanced - Master? Not bad. I don't feel strongly about this change for or against, so nothing much else to add.
Yeah, that's kinda how I feel about it. No big deal either way. It's interesting but pretty much confirms what I would have guessed about my approximate skill levels in comparision to each other. I don't really see any negatives coming about from this but about the only use I can see is for merchants and the rp of their crafts.
I don't like it. It's not the end of the world though. It puts a focus on skill levels that wasn't there before (at least for me). I would like to trade this for a list of the skills associated with each class/subclass. While present to some extent, you can still end up with skills that don't mesh with the background you wrote. We'll see if I have the willpower to keep brief skills on.
I'm guessing it's pretty vague.
lol @ a dry quiet war
Quite a few surprises for me.
Quote from: jhunter on April 02, 2010, 01:21:06 PM
Quote from: spawnloser on April 02, 2010, 12:17:12 PM
Yup, apparently not completely a joke. Novice - Apprentice - Journeyman - Advanced - Master? Not bad. I don't feel strongly about this change for or against, so nothing much else to add.
Yeah, that's kinda how I feel about it. No big deal either way. It's interesting but pretty much confirms what I would have guessed about my approximate skill levels in comparision to each other. I don't really see any negatives coming about from this but about the only use I can see is for merchants and the rp of their crafts.
I am kind of here. I mean I've played long enough I can guess who my skills range at, and the levels are WIDE enough to be rather vague. Not bluntly shooting into your face. This won't stop people from trying skill max, when we didn't have these levels it did not. Though will help with some roleplay things. -Shrugs-
ONLY thing I do not want to see. Is off/def scores. That would be a slippery slope down hill, going all wrong.Changed my mind after letting the thought settle in my noggin. Same way, same vague-ness, off/def add, nothing more. Wouldn't be end the world.
I'm curious as to why people think adding base O/D would be such a bad idea.
Quote from: Synthesis on April 02, 2010, 06:33:49 PM
I'm curious as to why people think adding base O/D would be such a bad idea.
Eh. On second thought. If was added like this. Don't see how it would be a bad idea. Only if was added in detail.
I mean it doesn't take much to figure out your off/def if you've played for a while.
So only new players would make use of it.
Whee, I just saw a skill go from X to Y.
That was fun.
Basically I was stunned by this change, but I guess knowing the staff policy on not revealing anything that isn't complete I shouldn't be surprised that it came out of the blue.
After I got over my confusion, I realized it really is realistic to have some idea how good you are at something. You already know what your stats are, and you already know what skills you do and do not have. This functionality makes sense.
Quote from: A Dry, Quiet War on April 02, 2010, 01:11:41 PM
Quote from: spawnloser on April 02, 2010, 12:17:12 PM
Novice - Apprentice - Journeyman - Advanced - Master? Not bad.
I'm PKin' the first fool that uses these words in-game, though. As in:
The tall, muscular man says, in sirihish,
"I'm advanced at peircing weapons but only journeyman at disarm."
But it's a toothsome change, otherwise.
The tall, muscular man says, in sirihish,
"Sure, I'll hold him boss. I'm apprentice at subdue!"
The tall, muscular man attempts to grab you but you wrestle away.Ahaha. I can't wait to see people referring to their skill levels IG.
Quote from: Synthesis on April 02, 2010, 06:33:49 PM
I'm curious as to why people think adding base O/D would be such a bad idea.
I don't honestly see any problem now that I think about it either. Really, it would help for creating your own emotes that fall within some sort of guidlines as far as rping combat stuff. With vague skill levels there could be approximate suggestions for skill levels in each skill as far as emoting specific things for each.
Journeyman defense, :deflects the blade barely to avoid the strike. Master defense: deflects the blade deftly to the side, lunging in to counter.
Something like that...maybe explained better than I can but...
Whats the difference between of/def and skills anyway? Other than the excuriatingly long time it takes to raise them, of course.
I don't think I like it for one reason.
When you fight people you have no basis for reference other than them.
You beat them and you think "You know what? I -am- a badass!"
Now you have some completely unbiased magickal reference of how good you are.
I think it places more of a burden on the players to have to look at the list and
pretend you don't know how good you really are.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 02, 2010, 08:13:03 PM
Whats the difference between of/def and skills anyway? Other than the excuriatingly long time it takes to raise them, of course.
Probably nothing staff would be happy with us discussing on the GDB :-\
Quote from: hyzhenhok on April 02, 2010, 07:53:46 PM
After I got over my confusion, I realized it really is realistic to have some idea how good you are at something. You already know what your stats are, and you already know what skills you do and do not have. This functionality makes sense.
Sigh. Yeah. It is realistic to know where your skills are at, but I've always felt like I had a pretty accurate impression of this based on my characters performance. Even if I don't like this particular change, I think these types of changes are moving in the right direction. That is, putting more trust in the players and giving players more information to aide in realistic roleplay.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on April 02, 2010, 08:21:04 PM
I don't think I like it for one reason.
When you fight people you have no basis for reference other than them.
You beat them and you think "You know what? I -am- a badass!"
Now you have some completely unbiased magickal reference of how good you are.
I think it places more of a burden on the players to have to look at the list and
pretend you don't know how good you really are.
True. Maybe if the combat skills were left out of the loop, hm?
Quote from: KankWhisperer on April 02, 2010, 08:21:04 PM
I don't think I like it for one reason.
When you fight people you have no basis for reference other than them.
You beat them and you think "You know what? I -am- a badass!"
Now you have some completely unbiased magickal reference of how good you are.
I think it places more of a burden on the players to have to look at the list and
pretend you don't know how good you really are.
The point: If you don't like seeing the values then you can go "brief skills".
In this game skills have been the only deciding bits of code that we HAVEN'T had values for since skill values were originally removed. Is it such a bad thing when we can adquately gauge where our characters are? Its not like you can see the skills of OTHER PC's until you actually confront them anyway. So what are you worried about? I think the major positive of this change is that we can make better decisions about how wreckless we pursue challenges. Let's face it, fighting a mekillot, five tarantula, or silt horror to judge if you are a badass isn't a very realistic behavior.
In the real world I might feel like a badass (no matter how good I am) if I beat someone at a game of chess, basketball, or even a game of Halo. But since there are plenty of other people other than ourselves by which we can grade our ability to perform I know that there are still many people better than me. In the same light, there are plenty of NPC's and VNPC's with virtual reputations in Zalanthas by which your PC's could compare our PC's.
Another thing to consider: Will a master of slashing and parry always beat someone with inferior skills? The answer is no. What determines success in a competition is so much more than the numerical or gradiant values of a couple skills. There are also stats, conditions, OTHER SKILLS, luck, and STRAGEGY that all factor in to the victory or defeat.
For everyone who doesn't like this addition - there is the "brief skills" option as Seph mentioned.
For those who want to use this as markers to flesh out their characters' skills - this is a welcome addition.
This is actually pretty great for 'teach' roleplay, as now you have an indication of the kind of knowledge your PC may possess.
Quote from: Sephiroto on April 04, 2010, 12:18:45 PM
The point: If you don't like seeing the values then you can go "brief skills".
In this game skills have been the only deciding bits of code that we HAVEN'T had values for since skill values were originally removed. Is it such a bad thing when we can adquately gauge where our characters are? Its not like you can see the skills of OTHER PC's until you actually confront them anyway. So what are you worried about? I think the major positive of this change is that we can make better decisions about how wreckless we pursue challenges. Let's face it, fighting a mekillot, five tarantula, or silt horror to judge if you are a badass isn't a very realistic behavior.
In the real world I might feel like a badass (no matter how good I am) if I beat someone at a game of chess, basketball, or even a game of Halo. But since there are plenty of other people other than ourselves by which we can grade our ability to perform I know that there are still many people better than me. In the same light, there are plenty of NPC's and VNPC's with virtual reputations in Zalanthas by which your PC's could compare our PC's.
Another thing to consider: Will a master of slashing and parry always beat someone with inferior skills? The answer is no. What determines success in a competition is so much more than the numerical or gradiant values of a couple skills. There are also stats, conditions, OTHER SKILLS, luck, and STRAGEGY that all factor in to the victory or defeat.
The point is you may -think- you are a bad ass because you never lose to people who are inferior to you that you interact with. It's the big fish in a little pond syndrome. It happens to professional fighters all the time. They think they are at the next level but they aren't. You would -think- they could tell how good of a fighter they are. Now you can look at your skills and say oh no, still journeyman, I am not going out to fight anything really dangerous even though I feel invincible. Typically someone thinks they are better than they are because they don't have a completely infallible unbiased reference.
Crafting skills make more sense to me. Just my opinion. My skin doesn't hold water yours does etc.
Hearing about someone's reputation? Reputation would be completely slanted based on social status and OTHER FACTORS. That would give you an incorrect estimation of your skills.
You still only have a vague idea of where your skills are at, as you would in real life as a professional fighter or in learning a language.
I like it. As with about 90% of the code changes, I let out a huge fangirl scream when I got to see it IG.
As long as the length of time it takes to skill up from novice to apprentice is the same as journeyman to master.
I'm not sure how that would work with the way most skills go up. I'm assuming they are at even 20% intervals, but it would take much longer to reach higher skill levels as you will be far less likely to fail.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 05, 2010, 11:28:45 AM
As long as the length of time it takes to skill up from novice to apprentice is the same as journeyman to master.
Novice to apprentice is 1 up, Journeyman to master is 2 up. HOW in the hell would it take the same time?
Novice - Apprentice - Journeyman - Advanced - Master ?
Quote
I'm PKin' the first fool that uses these words in-game, though. As in:
Code:
The tall, muscular man says, in sirihish,
"I'm advanced at peircing weapons but only journeyman at disarm."
Blah. I was going to make this comment. Dick.
Seriously though, I find myself watching this a lot. But, like everyone said, it's not like I couldn't guestimate anyways. (Though, there was one rather interesting surprise for me (though it explained something that happened IG once.)
I'm curious, does this carry over to teh foul magick sp3llz as well?
Also, as far as revealing base O/D, there's only one reason -I- can think of to show that. I started a thread half a year ago or so asking about branching parry off of more than just one skill, and from the answers I got, I think showing O/D would alleviate possible pesky emails. (I was told that if other related combat skills were high enough, you could put in a request for parry on certain classes.) I'd post a link, but I don't have time.
Cool add all and all.
Oh, one more thing. I think a toggle would be handier than "skill brief". *shrug* Just a thought, but no big.
Spells do NOT get these descriptors. (I feel fairly certain that this isn't sensitive information.)
Quote from: BlackMagic0 on April 05, 2010, 12:09:38 PM
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on April 05, 2010, 11:28:45 AM
As long as the length of time it takes to skill up from novice to apprentice is the same as journeyman to master.
Novice to apprentice is 1 up, Journeyman to master is 2 up. HOW in the hell would it take the same time?
Novice - Apprentice - Journeyman - Advanced - Master ?
I'm pretty sure you got my point.
Just for reference, real life skill progression occurs more like this:
unconscious incompetence ---> conscious incompetence ---> conscious competence ---> unconscious competence
Edit: according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_competence) theory at least
My only comment: if you're a lady pc, does your skill say (journeywoman)?
Quote from: Lithium on April 05, 2010, 08:50:29 PM
My only comment: if you're a lady pc, does your skill say (journeywoman)?
Find out IC.
I think this is a great change.
I remember back in the day when we had the percentage clearly visible and when the Immortals took it away it was difficult. Over the time it became no big deal (like most change, actually). I actually used the lack of visible skill points as a selling point for the RPI-ness of the game.
I'm surprised, however, how easy it is to go "back" at least to some degree. I like seeing a generalized indicator of ability. I can think - "Hrm, I'm not so good at this - but I'm really good at this - how will I RP that?"
I think it's a good thing.
Quote from: Jingo on April 05, 2010, 08:48:09 PM
Just for reference, real life skill progression occurs more like this:
unconscious incompetence ---> conscious incompetence ---> conscious competence ---> unconscious competence
Edit: according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_competence) theory at least
I would imagine you could roleplay them as such.
I think the display of our skills should be skewed by the drunk code. When plastered, all skills should show as "master."
I like it, Thunkkin. Actually, being a little drunk should show a slight boost, and the more drunk you get, the higher all your skills read as.
Quote from: spawnloser on April 06, 2010, 11:08:09 PM
I like it, Thunkkin. Actually, being a little drunk should show a slight boost, and the more drunk you get, the higher all your skills read as.
When sufficiently plastered, your skills should read like they did for April Fool's.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on April 06, 2010, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: spawnloser on April 06, 2010, 11:08:09 PM
I like it, Thunkkin. Actually, being a little drunk should show a slight boost, and the more drunk you get, the higher all your skills read as.
When sufficiently plastered, your skills should read like they did for April Fool's.
I would be so tempted to play an alcoholic.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on April 06, 2010, 11:19:27 PM
Quote from: spawnloser on April 06, 2010, 11:08:09 PM
I like it, Thunkkin. Actually, being a little drunk should show a slight boost, and the more drunk you get, the higher all your skills read as.
When sufficiently plastered, your skills should read like they did for April Fool's.
Yes. And some skills should show (Horny) and (Victory) and (Sleepy-town) and (Boner).
And
Quote
Mudsex0rz (Iron Chef of Pounding Vaag)
should show up under the 'Manipulation Skills' heading.
Jack, I think you're starting to joke more than make serious suggestions. That's what the random threads in the OOC forum are for, if you ask me.
I need that mudsexorz skill added please xD
Anyways, I personally like the change.
QuoteI can think - "Hrm, I'm not so good at this - but I'm really good at this - how will I fix that?"
Fixed for you.
Quote from: spawnloser on April 09, 2010, 01:44:02 PM
Jack, I think you're starting to joke more than make serious suggestions. That's what the random threads in the OOC forum are for, if you ask me.
I eloquently disagree. Jack should keep it up. But most of all listen to no one but himself.