hi,
how about this:
give the player the idea to set the skill-level of a skill to a lower value, to pretend he is doing things less good than he can.
example:
skills shows: --> cooking (advanced)
player command: "set cooking apprentice"
skills shows: --> cooking (apprentice) (max advanced)
now the player executes the cooking skill with a random "apprentice" value, and burns stuff more often.
in order to prevent skillabuse, one could have it that whatever skill is lowered by this won't get experience at all.
Is this just for RP sake? So your PC can sandbag?
You could probably just emote missing, or failing or whatever, unless you were crafting and wanted the fail craft item or something.
If so, it might just be easier to go with a blanket 'fail' command.
>fail craft thingee into awesome widget
You snap a thingee, and only salvage a broken widget.
i didn't only think about crafting, but other things too, combat for example, where you join a new gang and pretend that you're way worse than you are, or stuff like that.
This belongs in code discussion.
I see problems with just emoting failures on coded skills:
1. This -is- a coded skill-based game. Like it or not, most of our skills -are- coded, and -do- come with successes/failures. Pretending to succeed on something without letting the code decide, is called metagaming. The same can - and should - be said for pretending to fail.
2. There has been an influx of players lately who "play the code" and wouldn't let you get away with it anyway. Example:
emote bends the branch, trying to shape a bow, only to have it snap.
junk branch [sending splinters flying]
The code-player says, OOC,
"Hey just type craft branch and let the code decide."
You say, OOC,
"I'm trying to prove ICly that my character is failing."
The code-player says, OOC,
"But you have the skill, you can make bows!"
And then you're faced with a choice: continue down the OOC conversation road and get frustrated because you're wasting time arguing about roleplay in the middle of a scene.. or, abruptly leave the scene, or just quit out and log back in later and hope that guy isn't there.
This kind of situation doesn't only happen - it has been happening with increasing frequency. I'd rather not do anything to encourage it.
The code decides if you succeed or fail, when it comes to coded skills. Let it continue to do that. That's what it's there for.
As such, I'd be fine with the ability to set your skill level to a little lower, to increase your chance of failure - but ONLY if it doesn't boost your skill (because failure = skill boost in our skills system). So if your skill max is at advanced, and you set it to journeyman, you would immediately STOP getting skill increases until you set it back to advanced.
Quote from: Lizzie on November 27, 2013, 08:11:36 AM
I see problems with just emoting failures on coded skills:
1. This -is- a coded skill-based game. Like it or not, most of our skills -are- coded, and -do- come with successes/failures. Pretending to succeed on something without letting the code decide, is called metagaming. The same can - and should - be said for pretending to fail.
2. There has been an influx of players lately who "play the code" and wouldn't let you get away with it anyway. Example:
emote bends the branch, trying to shape a bow, only to have it snap.
junk branch [sending splinters flying]
The code-player says, OOC,
"Hey just type craft branch and let the code decide."
You say, OOC,
"I'm trying to prove ICly that my character is failing."
The code-player says, OOC,
"But you have the skill, you can make bows!"
And then you're faced with a choice: continue down the OOC conversation road and get frustrated because you're wasting time arguing about roleplay in the middle of a scene.. or, abruptly leave the scene, or just quit out and log back in later and hope that guy isn't there.
This kind of situation doesn't only happen - it has been happening with increasing frequency. I'd rather not do anything to encourage it.
The code decides if you succeed or fail, when it comes to coded skills. Let it continue to do that. That's what it's there for.
As such, I'd be fine with the ability to set your skill level to a little lower, to increase your chance of failure - but ONLY if it doesn't boost your skill (because failure = skill boost in our skills system). So if your skill max is at advanced, and you set it to journeyman, you would immediately STOP getting skill increases until you set it back to advanced.
Right.
Be a real shame if low levels would die because no sergeant can adjust his skill!
Oh wait. That happens.
Be a real shame if a person new in time with godly skills would stand out immediately because of their fighting prowess!
Oh hey. That does happen.
Be a real shame if I couldn't 'accidentally' miss that one important shot on my secret associate even when the templar told me to kill them!
Oh wait. I can't. Oops.
I'd continue posting examples and saying why, but really, your argument makes no sense to begin with. I like this idea regardless.
Quote from: Lizzie on November 27, 2013, 08:11:36 AM
I see problems with just emoting failures on coded skills:
1. This -is- a coded skill-based game. Like it or not, most of our skills -are- coded, and -do- come with successes/failures. Pretending to succeed on something without letting the code decide, is called metagaming. The same can - and should - be said for pretending to fail.
2. There has been an influx of players lately who "play the code" and wouldn't let you get away with it anyway. Example:
emote bends the branch, trying to shape a bow, only to have it snap.
junk branch [sending splinters flying]
The code-player says, OOC,
"Hey just type craft branch and let the code decide."
You say, OOC,
"I'm trying to prove ICly that my character is failing."
The code-player says, OOC,
"But you have the skill, you can make bows!"
And then you're faced with a choice: continue down the OOC conversation road and get frustrated because you're wasting time arguing about roleplay in the middle of a scene.. or, abruptly leave the scene, or just quit out and log back in later and hope that guy isn't there.
This kind of situation doesn't only happen - it has been happening with increasing frequency. I'd rather not do anything to encourage it.
The code decides if you succeed or fail, when it comes to coded skills. Let it continue to do that. That's what it's there for.
As such, I'd be fine with the ability to set your skill level to a little lower, to increase your chance of failure - but ONLY if it doesn't boost your skill (because failure = skill boost in our skills system). So if your skill max is at advanced, and you set it to journeyman, you would immediately STOP getting skill increases until you set it back to advanced.
The person OOC'ing here should be reported. Not only for being a bad player. But also for being a stupid douche.
That being said, I like the idea. There have been more than a few times I wished I could have made my character fail to fool those around me into underestimating me for RP purposes.
Yes I like it too.
>set slashing weapons journeyman
You will function at a journeyman level in this talent.
>set slashing weapons master
You will function at your maximum efficiency in this talent.
I've wanted this for a long time. Even started making notes on various canned responses to skills to try to spoof them... many are impossible if there's more than one person involved with the skill (combat with an observer for instance).
I think as long as you can't learn while you've got your skill set lower, there wouldn't be any downsides.
Maybe just for fun make a very difficult 'watch' check to notice someone's boffing it on purpose!
I don't think you need to code this really. I think you should be able to rp out your character failing when you're just looking for rp. You're not gaining any skill advantage for role playing it out, and the role play is supposed to be what is important in Arm, not the skills. I think it should be acceptable as long as what you are role playing is themely.
IE:
emote attempts to craft a branch into a bow and snaps the branch. - acceptable
emote farts rainbows and poops butterflies - yeah, not so much.
That being said, if someone doesn't accept you wanting to role playing something so simple, why are they on a role playing game?
LittleLady, the reason we would like this is because certain skills, like combat, can't really be "faked" or "roleplayed" to be worse than they are.
(Well, they SORT of can...you can make yourself worse at combat by carrying heavy things and using a weapon you're not familiar with.)
But this would allow people to legitimately pretend to be worse than they are and get a coded result.
The one thing I'd want is for people not to gain any skill with their almost sure failure at whatever they're trying to do. If you're pretending to be worse than you are, you probably aren't learning anything new about the skill.
I can see this being a system that would have to be put into place for combat.
Perhaps instead of a whole new system to lower skills, you can put in a setting under nosave.
It would be something like nosave throw, and toggle you will now attempt to throw a fight/you will not attempt to throw a fight
I like this! Nice idea, theebie. RPing out a failure works in some cases, but not always - sometimes you need to make a coded roll on a skill, and when you do you don't always have a good way to make yourself fail at it if you want to. Combat and crafting are definitely good examples, but I could see shady types wanting to fool people into thinking they're a bumbling goof when they're actually the best thief this side of Tuluk.
I agree that this would be mostly for combat, since it really doesn't make that much sense if a sergeant fights at their best while a hopelessly bad fighter tries to hit them once.
I've wanted "set effort" for a long time now, where its literally just a command that sets skills at a percentage of max. Like, set effort 50 sets your skills, including offense and defense, at 50% of their current.
And yes, it'd be great for combat, especially since you COULD do the Dragonball Z style set effort 100;em STARTS GLOWING FUCKING YELLOW.
But I think it would be great to 'accidentally' fail at something you're a master at. If you're a crafting mentor, showing an apprentice how to make something, you could "purposefully" fail and show them how "most apprentices try to cut corners" or etc. I agree its not AS necessary with crafting, but it'd be a nice prop.
I honestly think the toggle idea for throwing would be the best bet. I think it might save a bit of coding and I think it would make the watch command more useful to see if someone is deliberately throwing fights. Well watch and some combination of your own skill at fighting. A master swordsmen would be able to tell if other swordsmen are better then they are pretending to be.
As for crafting? You could simply not make the roll and rp it out. I personally would be fine with this. Alternatively, you could make it and rp some flaw that makes it below quality and trash it that way. Both I think are acceptable.
I think it would be especially helpful for advanced combat characters trying to train new ones, to be able to codedly take it easy on them beyond just weighing yourself down and using a weak weapon. I agree the advanced PC should not be able to learn anything at all from this.
I've watched martial arts masters with decades of experience spar with brand new students without knocking them senseless. I watched Bill "Superfoot" Wallace "spar" with my (then) brown-belt 14yo kid in a training seminar! (Sort of a Billy Jack moment - I'm going to put this foot up the side of your head and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.) But it's well known that the inexperienced fighter is the most dangerous thing in the dojo, because they have no control.
Control is a facet of fighting skill and it's realistic that an advanced combat PC would be able to take it easy on another if they so desired.
I'm all for this if it could only be used once you master a skill.
Also, joining a clan and humiliating one of the clan leaders in the sparring ring is not the best way to make a good impression, or keep your head even. I agree, please let us lower our skills temporarily.
Quote from: ShaLeah on November 27, 2013, 01:16:20 PM
I'm all for this if it could only be used once you master a skill.
This would make it very difficult for combat PCs as weapons skills, well, you know.
Quote from: Fujikoma on November 27, 2013, 01:44:54 PM
Quote from: ShaLeah on November 27, 2013, 01:16:20 PM
I'm all for this if it could only be used once you master a skill.
This would make it very difficult for combat PCs as weapons skills, well, you know.
Welp. You can fake it with emotes and every one of us should honor that emoting system. However, I feel like no one is really a master of his/her art until they are... well... a master. So if you want to be an 80 day maxed warrior and go fake the funk in the opposing city you should be able to pretend just fine. No one else should be able to though.
You shouldn't have to be a master to take it easy on someone, that's not realistic, though you should have to have something beyond a basic understanding.
Not sure I buy that, Shal. Why would a person who's only "advanced" or "journeyman" not be capable of to pretending to be a novice? At the core we're just talking about "not using everything you know", which you wouldn't need to be a master to do.
Quote from: Jherlen on November 27, 2013, 01:56:18 PM
Not sure I buy that, Shal. Why would a person who's only "advanced" or "journeyman" not be capable of to pretending to be a novice? At the core we're just talking about "not using everything you know", which you wouldn't need to be a master to do.
I think this is a neat idea and I agree with Jherlen. When I get paired up against newer fencers at the fencing club, I don't go at them like I'm trying to qualify for the Olympics. I move slower, I lunge slower, I refrain from using fancier tricks to score. I'm by no means an expert fencer.
The idea that you could "emote" being bad or not as good at a skill and people would go along with it is absolutely sound.
IC'ly, I would trust most of the player base to roleplay right along with the happenings, but, I don't want to set me skill lower to fool them IC, I am trying to fool the player of that character on an OOC level.
You know, and I know, that even if the player of that character roleplays at the time to believe you are "not as good" as you are, that OOC'ly, they are probably going to sway their decisions in regards to your character based on the fact that they now know OOC'ly you are probably better than you are acting.
Why? Because they know OOC'ly you are acting.
Being able to lower your skill level to IC'ly and codedly (the important part) make your character look worse at something will ensure the other players you are counting on to make the right IC decisions aren't tempted to do otherwise.
If they don't have that knowledge, they don't have to make a decision to roleplay correctly, and you don't have to trust them to, because unfortunately, especially in combat situations, people are going to make the right decision based on the choice to live, instead of the right decision based on the choice to remain IC.
If they think John the Warrior is a novice fighter on an OOC level, they will roleplay John the Warrior is a novice fighter IC'ly. If they think John the Warrior is probably an advanced fighter, but they know he is pretending to be a novice fighter, well, when shit hits the fan, they are going to make decisions based on what they know OOC and not what they know IC, most of the time.
I don't much care for that fact, but, for most of the player base, it is exactly that, a fact.
I really like the idea, but any skill gains would have to naturally be removed. Otherwise, yeah, great idea.
Junk the item when you succeed crafting it.
There's your failure.
The pretending to be newbie, but grand master warrior says to you, in sirihish: "Well....okay, I'll try boss."
>kill fakingdude
The fakingdude swiftly parries your attack.
The fakingdude chops you on your neck, inflicting a grevious wound.
The fakingdude chops you on your neck, inflicting a grevious wound.
Your vision goes black.
Someone looks about, with a sheepish expression, as you bleed to death.
How does one participate codedly in combat and "rp failures." ?
EDIT: I understand this is a rare situation. But for things other than crafting, what would you recommend?
Arrows can be just shot without a target, which is useful. But one can't purposely fail at combat in this game.
I'd love the idea joe somebody could bribe that Kuraci Pit Champion to "throw" next season's fight against Runner #234562 in order to rake in the coin on the bets placed.
Or maybe not every mentor in combat is not interested in beating the absolute shit out of their protege while trying to teach them how to fight.
I can't really understand an argument against this by any player.
I could understand staff arguing against this, because of the coding.
But how could an player dislike the idea in any way?
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on November 27, 2013, 08:43:18 PM
I can't really understand an argument against this by any player.
I could understand staff arguing against this, because of the coding.
But how could an player dislike the idea in any way?
I didn't choose the metagaming life, the meta life chose me
I just want people to read the OP. He was very friggen clear that there would be no skillgains. Why do you guys stupidly insist on saying "i support this IF THERE ARE NO SKILLGAINS" when the OP already STATED that that was the intention? Come on.
Cabbage why are you getting so worked up? It's not like this is groundbreaking stuff here, it's been proposed and requested in the past and the staff has chosen not to implement it (either because it's too much work, or it's a low priority, or it's in progress and not scheduled to be out yet, or they just don't wanna). It's mostly just chatter on a forum.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on November 27, 2013, 08:43:18 PM
I can't really understand an argument against this by any player.
I could understand staff arguing against this, because of the coding.
But how could an player dislike the idea in any way?
Yeah, I read the whole thing and am feeling like there's something I'm missing here, since people are arguing against it.
An example, ten game year sargaent should be able to meet, and slowly but gradually exceed the level at which he is fighting the new runner in order to test their abilities, instead of trying to fight them, but then almost killing them instantly. This exact example happens too much, a few fighters in the game are just too good to train newbies, which doesn't make sense.
I like the concept. I just don't want it to be too exact, or else I'd feel like I'm controlling a fighting robot. The suggestions of being able to set skills to roughly a novice, apprentice, or journeyman level seems fine. I don't want numbers in my RPI so no percentages.
I also think the variation in skill level should get higher as you go farther from your natural level. for instance somebody who is journeyman in slashing who wants to pretend to be a novice will do a pretty good job at that since it wasn't that long ago that they were completely new. however a master swordsman will have a really hard time pretending to be a novice, and there will be a chance each time he attacks that he will randomly do much better than he should be for a novice. a master swordsman however, will be able to pretend to be at a journeyman level more accurately, with less chance for randomly inserted critical failures or critical successes.
But yeah, it's a good idea and would add realistic controls and reduce awkward scenes.
Quote from: i love toilets on November 28, 2013, 12:04:06 PM
An example, ten game year sargaent should be able to meet, and slowly but gradually exceed the level at which he is fighting the new runner in order to test their abilities, instead of trying to fight them, but then almost killing them instantly. This exact example happens too much, a few fighters in the game are just too good to train newbies, which doesn't make sense.
Or people could, you know, learn how to train people as opposed to merely fighting them.
There are plenty of ways to train people at the combat skills that do not involve putting them into the hp range that requires sleep to regen. If one hasn't figured those out, it's their own fault for not trying hard enough. A "code-crutch" of suspect difficulty to add to the game for staff isn't going to help. It might solve the problem for those at fault, but it won't help them in any way.
As far as for things like crafting skills... I've never heard of anyone demanding they craft something right in front of them to prove they can or can't do it since I started playing. When it involves crafter employees of merchant houses, that might be necessary at times as those are jobs that do need a specific skill-set, or maybe a templar/noble calling you out on claims, but other than that, I can't think of any reason such a thing would legitimately happen.
I would personally rather have staff spending their time on that list they have of things they've already decided to work on.
For all we know this IS the next thing on the list.
disengage
Not the same, dear Delirium, but yes, it helps.
Quote from: Riya OniSenshi on November 28, 2013, 12:25:57 PM
Quote from: i love toilets on November 28, 2013, 12:04:06 PM
An example, ten game year sargaent should be able to meet, and slowly but gradually exceed the level at which he is fighting the new runner in order to test their abilities, instead of trying to fight them, but then almost killing them instantly. This exact example happens too much, a few fighters in the game are just too good to train newbies, which doesn't make sense.
Or people could, you know, learn how to train people as opposed to merely fighting them.
There are plenty of ways to train people at the combat skills that do not involve putting them into the hp range that requires sleep to regen. If one hasn't figured those out, it's their own fault for not trying hard enough. A "code-crutch" of suspect difficulty to add to the game for staff isn't going to help. It might solve the problem for those at fault, but it won't help them in any way.
As far as for things like crafting skills... I've never heard of anyone demanding they craft something right in front of them to prove they can or can't do it since I started playing. When it involves crafter employees of merchant houses, that might be necessary at times as those are jobs that do need a specific skill-set, or maybe a templar/noble calling you out on claims, but other than that, I can't think of any reason such a thing would legitimately happen.
I would personally rather have staff spending their time on that list they have of things they've already decided to work on.
Yikes, see? This is what I mean. Where's all this weird irrational negativity coming from? Is it because of thanksgiving?
Quote from: Riya OniSenshi on November 28, 2013, 12:25:57 PM
Or people could, you know, learn how to train people as opposed to merely fighting them.
There are plenty of ways to train people at the combat skills that do not involve putting them into the hp range that requires sleep to regen. If one hasn't figured those out, it's their own fault for not trying hard enough. A "code-crutch" of suspect difficulty to add to the game for staff isn't going to help. It might solve the problem for those at fault, but it won't help them in any way.
First off, you could sit there and give people the coded teach command for parry, slashing weapons, and shield use every day, without codedly fighting them, until you have expending every last bit you can teach. The next time you fight them, because their defense is so low, there's a good chance you'll still wreck them. Offense and Defense need to be trained, by ACTUALLY being in combat, just as other things do. Not every clan is the Byn, where you have 4-5 people you can codedly fight that are differing levels. If you're some old Militia Sergeant, and ALL YOU HAVE is that one Recruit, you should have a realistic option to fight them in a safe manner.
Quote from: Riya OniSenshi on November 28, 2013, 12:25:57 PM
I would personally rather have staff spending their time on that list they have of things they've already decided to work on.
You, personally, don't know what staff are, or aren't, working on. And if you do, then you are current or ex-staff and have been around long enough to know that sometimes an idea comes up, that a coder or producer really want to spend their time on, and it just kind of happens. Otherwise, to me, that is an -incredibly- toxic way to dismiss someone's idea.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on November 28, 2013, 01:41:33 PM
Not the same, dear Delirium, but yes, it helps.
It also sort of ignores all those people who were knocked out and then killed in the first couple rounds of combat with their e-twoing sergeant. That shit happens REALLY fast sometimes.
Quote from: i love toilets on November 28, 2013, 01:44:01 PM
Quote from: Riya OniSenshi on November 28, 2013, 12:25:57 PM
Quote from: i love toilets on November 28, 2013, 12:04:06 PM
An example, ten game year sargaent should be able to meet, and slowly but gradually exceed the level at which he is fighting the new runner in order to test their abilities, instead of trying to fight them, but then almost killing them instantly. This exact example happens too much, a few fighters in the game are just too good to train newbies, which doesn't make sense.
Or people could, you know, learn how to train people as opposed to merely fighting them.
There are plenty of ways to train people at the combat skills that do not involve putting them into the hp range that requires sleep to regen. If one hasn't figured those out, it's their own fault for not trying hard enough. A "code-crutch" of suspect difficulty to add to the game for staff isn't going to help. It might solve the problem for those at fault, but it won't help them in any way.
As far as for things like crafting skills... I've never heard of anyone demanding they craft something right in front of them to prove they can or can't do it since I started playing. When it involves crafter employees of merchant houses, that might be necessary at times as those are jobs that do need a specific skill-set, or maybe a templar/noble calling you out on claims, but other than that, I can't think of any reason such a thing would legitimately happen.
I would personally rather have staff spending their time on that list they have of things they've already decided to work on.
Yikes, see? This is what I mean. Where's all this weird irrational negativity coming from? Is it because of thanksgiving?
No man, some people are just REALLY against any form of change. It's irritating to see yet another "Staffs time should be spent doing other things that we aren't even discussing right now." post though. Entirely useless comment to make, as if EVERYONE wouldn't' rather the staff be working on the things they personally want, instead of the things they don't care that much about, even if it doesn't effect them in any negative way.
Yeh, we are discussing the merits of the idea, not whether staff should be doing this instead of something else.
Venomz' sig is correct.
Also, this idea can be used for combat skills in non-training scenarios as already hinted at. Of course nobody is saying drop everything and code a difficult tweak into ass-ancient DIKU today.
And in the spirit of gluttony and regret day, I will say I am infinitely thankful for staff's time and an already amazing RPI with one of my favorite combat systems ever, even if seemingly simple.
Between teach, using a shield or offhand only, nosave combat and disengage there really is no excuse for the 'whoopsie I broke the recruit' scenario unless you're a half giant or mul. As for the original idea, meh, but those of you complaining that 'training newbies is hard' need to get more creative :)
Quote from: Delirium on November 28, 2013, 07:11:38 PM
Between teach, using a shield or offhand only, nosave combat and disengage there really is no excuse for the 'whoopsie I broke the recruit' scenario unless you're a half giant or mul. As for the original idea, meh, but those of you complaining that 'training newbies is hard' need to get more creative :)
Teach - can't teach raw defense.
Shield - doesn't teach raw defense.
Offhand only - can still one-hit-wonder a low-defense recruit.
Nosave combat = can't teach raw defense.
Disengage = can't teach raw defense.
None of those things, other than off-hand weapons only, can help a recruit advance in defense. And the off-hand weapon only is no more useful than a primary hand, if the sergeant is mastered in all the weapons and combat styles (dual wield, etc) he's using, and the recruit has newbie defense. A city elf assassin recruit in the Byn, is not going to get much better at defending himself, if his Sergeant is a maxed warrior and he's the only one available to spar with other than the dummy. The Sergeant has to either a) disengage and *be* the dummy - which doesn't provide ANY defense to the recruit, or risk reeling and KO'ing the elf in the first hit, which also won't be useful, or fun, and not even believable roleplay.
It is for this reason, that the idea of being able to lower your skill max, is a good idea. It is better code-wise, AND better RP-wise, for a Sergeant to be more defensive and less aggressive, but *not* be 100% defensive and 0% aggressive, when sparring with his recruits.
Also to Riya OniSenshi - I think this skill-lowering toggle should be available for -all- skills, not just combat. If you really believe the -only- time someone would want to pretend they suck at crafting is if they're ordered by a templar or noble to prove it, then I'd say you've never played a master crafter who wanted to screw over his Kadian crewmates and boss. There's been plenty of times when I thought it'd be a great idea, during "group crafting" sessions, to make it look like my character wasn't particularly accomplished, but -was- capable of at least codedly attempting the skills.
Foraging was already changed to accommodate a "lower skill" ability. It used to be, once you became master level with foraging, it'd be very difficult to successfully forage for low-level items. That was changed, so that you can now forage for specific items. Used to be you'd forage wood, and end up with branches almost all the time (rather than twigs or vines, which someone might actually WANT to find), once you hit master forage. Likewise for people looking only for sandhoppers, instead of ocotillo bulbs (or whatever the appropriately more difficult thing to find is, in the location where you'd find sandhoppers).
Obviously, the staff agreed that this would be a useful thing. That's why they implemented it.
Different reasoning perhaps, but the concept is the same. The ability to intentionally attempt lesser-skilled tasks. I can think of some magickal and psionic things that this would be useful for as well. And sneak/hide/scan/hunt - I can totally see uses for intentionally being less-than-master at it, even if codedly, you are master at it.
You can still teach raw defense. Either hit them once or twice with a weapon to end the fight, or if that's too dangerous, use your fists.
Isnt the idea of "using a different weapon" or "use your fists" inherently more metagaming than a coded option to not fight at your best, at the expense of learning any new skills?
I mean... correct me if Im wrong. Codedly fighting at "less than best" is less about fooling the player as it is the PC. Lets move away from the Sergeant killing someone example and move on to other scenarios in which this will enrich the experience, or not. Like a general discussion instead of what seems to be happening this last page.
Is fist fighting really meta gaming? Isn't it teaching the basics of combat, without any weapons getting in the way? Isn't that kind of the point?
Quote from: Morgenes on November 28, 2013, 09:29:31 PM
Is fist fighting really meta gaming? Isn't it teaching the basics of combat, without any weapons getting in the way? Isn't that kind of the point?
I see Reiv's point to be more about realism. It's simply unrealistic to have to go through all the strange coded quirks that allow you to train someone less skilled than you(things you can only learn from other people who know the code, thus metagame). Such that if you went to get trained in real life and Sergeant Amos of your local MMA club started tying their hand behind their back, using a weapon they have no experience with in their off-hand, and strapped on the heaviest bag they could find, you'd think Sergeant Amos was a fucking retard and you'd go find a new Martial Arts club.
Quote from: Morgenes on November 28, 2013, 09:29:31 PM
Is fist fighting really meta gaming? Isn't it teaching the basics of combat, without any weapons getting in the way? Isn't that kind of the point?
If you can dodge a fist, you might be able to dodge a sword.
It also might help develop hand-eye coordination, combat reflexes, and development of good fighting babits.
My point is that I believe where training should start has been pointed out by a player already in this thread (hand to hand combat). If you look at Army training, and most martial arts, they start you off by learning about your body before putting any kind of weapon in your hand. It seems to me that it would make sense to train your recruits to the point where they can handle themselves before getting involved with things that might end them in an accident.
Well, the army doesn't teach a lot of hand to hand combat, actually, and to be honest? The army puts a weapon in your hand very early in your training, and you learn a lot -about- that weapon before you actually start putting it into practical application.
To elaborate, since I seem to have sparked a debate: you can roleplay with and work with what we've got codewise and very effectively train people of far lesser skill. You can. It requires a little forethought and interaction beyond kill amos but you absolutely can. Hell, you could do it before disengage and nosave combat. I've done it and seen it done. Is the system perfect? No. There really is no such thing in a text based game. But it's what we've got and it works well.
however, this is a derail from the original idea. While I'm not personally sold on it being necessary I can understand the occasional desire to purposefully botch a skill check - any skill check - so perhaps a 'nosave skills' option? Obviously when that is toggled you would not learn from your failures.
edit: and is the use of cross training unarmed and weapon combat really a debate? Come on! Burly sergeant Amos isn't going to hold a shield and let runner Malik whack at him with a padded weapon and then maybe teach runner Malik not to get cocky by socking him in the jaw when Malik's guard is down? Then lecture him about reflexes? Work with me guys. That is not meta gaming. That's playing a code based roleplaying game!
I agree with Delerium in as much as I think the "Sarge fighting a newbie in the sparring ring is always in danger of killing him" argument doesn't really hold up and there are coded ways to get around it already. That said, I like the idea for reasons beyond just the sparring scenario.
I also want to apologize for diverting the conversation. From my standpoint the idea is a sound one, however the issue is the number of skill checks in the game and the irregularity to the way they are handled makes tackling a proposition like this pretty monumental.
Quote from: Morgenes on November 28, 2013, 11:35:22 PM
I also want to apologize for diverting the conversation. From my standpoint the idea is a sound one, however the issue is the number of skill checks in the game and the irregularity to the way they are handled makes tackling a proposition like this pretty monumental.
Is that true of only the idea to lower skill ranks, or does it also apply to the 'nosave skills' idea where you toggle something that causes you to automatically fail skill checks?
Quote from: Narf on November 28, 2013, 11:39:54 PM
Quote from: Morgenes on November 28, 2013, 11:35:22 PM
I also want to apologize for diverting the conversation. From my standpoint the idea is a sound one, however the issue is the number of skill checks in the game and the irregularity to the way they are handled makes tackling a proposition like this pretty monumental.
Is that true of only the idea to lower skill ranks, or does it also apply to the 'nosave skills' idea where you toggle something that causes you to automatically fail skill checks?
Both.
Quote from: Morgenes on November 28, 2013, 11:35:22 PM
I also want to apologize for diverting the conversation. From my standpoint the idea is a sound one, however the issue is the number of skill checks in the game and the irregularity to the way they are handled makes tackling a proposition like this pretty monumental.
Yeh, I thought it might be a complicated situation to try handling.
Could nosave be expanded to include blanket arguments, such as nosave offense journeyman, nosave defense novice, etc, with a nosave group default to return things to where they should be? Would that be an easier solution, if the idea was even tackled in any manner? Because the way I see it, what we're conversing about is really changing a skill from it's current level to another level, and storing the first level's number value, and then reverting to that original value when we're done gimping ourselves.
I dunno. But this topic is really about discussing the merits of the idea, it's not really a plea for anything at this point.
I should say that once you have a method to change a PC's skill level from a to b, and store the value for a, so that the PC can change it back to a, it should become pretty easy to apply it to all skills. It's not skill checks that I'd think you have to worry about - it's the literal skill level that governs those checks.
Isn't it?
Quote from: Morgenes on November 28, 2013, 10:40:45 PM
My point is that I believe where training should start has been pointed out by a player already in this thread (hand to hand combat). If you look at Army training, and most martial arts, they start you off by learning about your body before putting any kind of weapon in your hand. It seems to me that it would make sense to train your recruits to the point where they can handle themselves before getting involved with things that might end them in an accident.
That is actually a fairly modern concept. If you take the romans, for instance, first you learned marching. Then you got fit (learn about body I guess) and then you were handed a weapon. No hand to hand training. Even in the east, a common soldier was basically taught his weapon. If you are teaching someone to fight in a sword fight...you teach them swords, not hand to hand. Modern dojo training is for sport, not combat.
As to the complications of code, couldn't you make the command put an affect on the character (removed when they reset their skill) that would be a simple minus to skill, and thus work like an equipped crafting tool, essentially, on the ultimate skill level of the person?
Quote from: Twilight on November 29, 2013, 12:04:18 AM
As to the complications of code, couldn't you make the command put an affect on the character (removed when they reset their skill) that would be a simple minus to skill, and thus work like an equipped crafting tool, essentially, on the ultimate skill level of the person?
Not really, no.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on November 28, 2013, 11:55:11 PM
I should say that once you have a method to change a PC's skill level from a to b, and store the value for a, so that the PC can change it back to a, it should become pretty easy to apply it to all skills. It's not skill checks that I'd think you have to worry about - it's the literal skill level that governs those checks.
Isn't it?
The issue is that how skill level is pulled varies from command to command. It has been standardized somewhat, but it's not 100%. I'm probably over speaking the complication, but it is significant effort to make sure that every retrieval of a skill throughout the over 500 skills that are in the game to make sure they all will work properly, as well as make sure they all handle gains differently, so each will have to be handled to cut learning.
Beyond that combat complicates things further due to the sheer number of skills that are incorporated into one melee round. If any one of those is being intentionally nerfed (by this command you guys are proposing), it would have to potentially block all learning from combat. I'd be concerned about missing a skill gain.
Hmmm.
Two questions - first, isn't learning handled in one place per skill? I understand If it's not, then ... no, it's the checks that raise skills, not the skill's function ... gawd. Yeh, I see your point.
What if you did a blanket state that halted all learning from any skill at all, if any skill was being nerfed?
So, by setting my slashing skill to novice, my PC can not learn any skill at all until my slashing skill is reset to default. That way you wouldn't have to dictate which skill is not being learned.
No, you would still have to change every check to account for that blanket state too.
Wow ... yeh, this would be a pretty big undertaking for the reward.
I forget who suggested nosave skills, but I just wanted to reply to that. The main reason that nosave skills wouldn't' work is because although I am retarding my slashing skill in order to teach someone, I am not nerfing my defensive skill in order to get hit more. Nosave skills would turn everything to novice or whatever, which wouldn't look right - suddenly I'm being struck as though I am not the defensive master I am, when all I want to do is graze Bob instead of doing unspeakable damage to him.
I know skills can be set to no-gain, and I know staff have the ability to affect your character's attributes... but I think extending that functionality to the playerbase, so far as how they work, would probably still be pretty monumental. I'm not sure its a good idea to allow players access to editing any part of their character file.
I still think it would be nice to have a "change effort <skill name> <parameter>" that only affected that one skill, and on use would add a no-gain flag on skills. I'm not saying its easy or clean, just... it would be nice.
Just turn into an alcoholic once you're a clan leader and have to train the recruits. :)
Byn Sarge arrives from the north, drinking from an upended keg.
Byn Sarge says, "Okay fucking new guys. Try to hit me."
Morgenes: I can think of a few code penalties that already exist in game that could be modified or replicated to imitate the request here.
I think it was mentioned that going to sparring drunk was actually considered abuse and was frowned upon heavily by staff.
Quote from: evilcabbage on November 29, 2013, 02:54:46 AM
I think it was mentioned that going to sparring drunk was actually considered abuse and was frowned upon heavily by staff.
Fuck that. All of my great combat PCs have been alcoholics. When I played a Salarri Agent she forced her hunters to drink every time they "won" a sparring match. Iron gut, iron will!
Quote from: Morgenes on November 28, 2013, 09:29:31 PM
Is fist fighting really meta gaming? Isn't it teaching the basics of combat, without any weapons getting in the way? Isn't that kind of the point?
The problem is that combat basics change immensely depending on your range and mode of combat.
Boxers for instance duck and weave close in. Ducking and weaving would be utterly useless in longsword fighting, where you'd be looking to parry or dance back out of the way. Boxing starts with punching and bagwork, medieval longsword training tends to start from basic stances, positions that leave you readied to attack or defend, and movements out of these. There isn't really a lot of crossover, much as being a good boxer doesn't give you much to work with when you start grappling beyond fitness and balance (and balance is maybe questionable, certainly from my grappling experience kickboxers can come in with habits which are actively counterproductive to mounting a defence against grappling as they're used to keeping their centre of gravity way too high).
It strikes me the largest roleplay opportunity people are keen to see here is regarding combat. I think the sergeant who can't stop whaling on recruits is the biggest problem driving demand for this. Perhaps it would be possible to have a general modifier to attack - some multiplier that served as input to the combat code - so people could temporarily set their ability to attack to a weaker level than their maximum. This could be a multiplier that affects every skill checked when the attack happens and disables learning for those skills while maximum effort isn't being exerted, or something simpler still that intercepts a successful hit decision and randomly changes it to a fail with some pre-determined probability. It would be more targeted than the ability to nerf any skill and so I think it might be more doable?
Quote from: Quirk on November 29, 2013, 05:57:43 AM
Quote from: Morgenes on November 28, 2013, 09:29:31 PM
Is fist fighting really meta gaming? Isn't it teaching the basics of combat, without any weapons getting in the way? Isn't that kind of the point?
The problem is that combat basics change immensely depending on your range and mode of combat.
Boxers for instance duck and weave close in. Ducking and weaving would be utterly useless in longsword fighting, where you'd be looking to parry or dance back out of the way. Boxing starts with punching and bagwork, medieval longsword training tends to start from basic stances, positions that leave you readied to attack or defend, and movements out of these. There isn't really a lot of crossover, much as being a good boxer doesn't give you much to work with when you start grappling beyond fitness and balance (and balance is maybe questionable, certainly from my grappling experience kickboxers can come in with habits which are actively counterproductive to mounting a defence against grappling as they're used to keeping their centre of gravity way too high).
It strikes me the largest roleplay opportunity people are keen to see here is regarding combat. I think the sergeant who can't stop whaling on recruits is the biggest problem driving demand for this. Perhaps it would be possible to have a general modifier to attack - some multiplier that served as input to the combat code - so people could temporarily set their ability to attack to a weaker level than their maximum. This could be a multiplier that affects every skill checked when the attack happens and disables learning for those skills while maximum effort isn't being exerted, or something simpler still that intercepts a successful hit decision and randomly changes it to a fail with some pre-determined probability. It would be more targeted than the ability to nerf any skill and so I think it might be more doable?
Do you know what ducking does when someone is swinging at your neck? Or what weaving does when the guy is trying to jab you in the face? I think it's oftentimes called "dodging attacks in a reflexive manner". Seems to make an awful lot of sense that you would want to learn about REFLEXES and FOOTWORK in a more basic fighting form before you learn your more advanced weapons tactics.
Also, you say simpler. I think Morgenes just explained that the code changes necessary to make this possible are a near-monumental feat that are difficult enough where it's almost infeasible to perform such a task.
Quote from: evilcabbage on November 29, 2013, 10:22:38 AM
Quote from: Quirk on November 29, 2013, 05:57:43 AM
Quote from: Morgenes on November 28, 2013, 09:29:31 PM
Is fist fighting really meta gaming? Isn't it teaching the basics of combat, without any weapons getting in the way? Isn't that kind of the point?
The problem is that combat basics change immensely depending on your range and mode of combat.
Boxers for instance duck and weave close in. Ducking and weaving would be utterly useless in longsword fighting, where you'd be looking to parry or dance back out of the way. Boxing starts with punching and bagwork, medieval longsword training tends to start from basic stances, positions that leave you readied to attack or defend, and movements out of these. There isn't really a lot of crossover, much as being a good boxer doesn't give you much to work with when you start grappling beyond fitness and balance (and balance is maybe questionable, certainly from my grappling experience kickboxers can come in with habits which are actively counterproductive to mounting a defence against grappling as they're used to keeping their centre of gravity way too high).
It strikes me the largest roleplay opportunity people are keen to see here is regarding combat. I think the sergeant who can't stop whaling on recruits is the biggest problem driving demand for this. Perhaps it would be possible to have a general modifier to attack - some multiplier that served as input to the combat code - so people could temporarily set their ability to attack to a weaker level than their maximum. This could be a multiplier that affects every skill checked when the attack happens and disables learning for those skills while maximum effort isn't being exerted, or something simpler still that intercepts a successful hit decision and randomly changes it to a fail with some pre-determined probability. It would be more targeted than the ability to nerf any skill and so I think it might be more doable?
Do you know what ducking does when someone is swinging at your neck? Or what weaving does when the guy is trying to jab you in the face? I think it's oftentimes called "dodging attacks in a reflexive manner". Seems to make an awful lot of sense that you would want to learn about REFLEXES and FOOTWORK in a more basic fighting form before you learn your more advanced weapons tactics.
Also, you say simpler. I think Morgenes just explained that the code changes necessary to make this possible are a near-monumental feat that are difficult enough where it's almost infeasible to perform such a task.
How many years do you have in training in hand-to-hand combat designed to kill human beings and what is your frame of reference for realistic medieval style combat? I would be curious to know.
I would put in my two cents but y'know, I'll let the experts handle this.
i'm pretty sure it's 100% feasible to -duck under a horizontal swing aimed at your neck-.
Quote from: evilcabbage on November 29, 2013, 11:56:39 AM
i'm pretty sure it's 100% feasible to -duck under a horizontal swing aimed at your neck-.
Perhaps. And then your combat instructor would hang his head in shame, because you forgot you had a weapon in your hand and should have parried.
So I should waste effort to parry when I can duck and cut him in half. Great idea.
I'd like to say again that I really like this idea. But it is one of those things where I can see solutions both coded and none coded to achieve the same result.
As a new player in this very situation. It can be very difficult to get training that won't result in my character being killed outright. I was told this walking in and thankfully the caln I've been in have been really good at taking precautions to make sure that training does not kill. Through the use of Mercy to stop a killing blow and the limitations of their own weapon use for safety(and all was handled in a way very IC). So I think that a better awareness can defiantly fi the combat side of things. But things can happen.
I know that hand-to-hand can be just as dangerous sometimes because of the massive stun damage some characters can get off with a simple punch.
If a Sargent or any other leader is too skilled to fight then they should task another member with training a group of recruits or bring in and encourage training with other people not of the clan.
In other areas simply rping out the fail should work. it would work for me but I can only speak for me.
Would a simple mode command work? ie mode normal/throw. This stops all skill gain across the board. So you wouldn't need o take into account all skills just a blanket no gain. And it would automatically give a 50% fail chance to all rolls. Toggle it off to return the values to normal.
Like I said. I think this would be incredibly useful. But I do see how a little more care and thinking on a players part could fix it to a good degree too. Is it metagaming to use a weapon you couldn't instantly kill people with, I don't think so. It can be explained icly.
"I can't use this weapon on you. I'm too good with it and when I'm using it, instinct takes over." / "Sorry we can't use that weapon because even a pulled blow can kill until you get a little tougher"
To me, Yummri, I just can't handle the "Sorry, I can't use this weapon because instinct takes over" excuse just feels laughably weak. Its an excuse because the code doesn't allow us to swing lighter, or give the opponent more of a chance to hit you, and whether a master swordsman or a decent axe man, you're probably capable of the typical "This person is a child, I'll pull my swings and let them get a hit in" sort of situation.
I'd also SERIOUSLY like to get away from the example of someone killing someone else in combat. Clearly, people are saying this has a moderate chance of being handled by the player. There must be other examples where this would be useful, such as in an RP scenario. The item crafting comes to mind, as well as the idea of 'fooling' someone into thinking you're worse than you are.
I'm telling you, it would be kind of awesome to be a "spy" in the game, because you started off as a 'Nakki, and spent 2 in game years training... got someone to ink a pretty decent Tuluki tattoo on your neck and hands, and moved to Tuluki to join the Legions. But you always... ALWAYS sparred at less than your best, unless in a trusted environment where the enemy wasn't watching. Until that one day that the Templar comes in to watch you, and you just -murderate- them unexpectedly.
How would I roleplay that out, now? Roleplay -every- sparring match I have, being a bumbling fool, etc etc? Combat at less than your best isn't about metagaming or fooling the player behind the PC. Its about fooling the PC and everyone else, so that nobody knows your true skill. Are Zalanthans just incapable, due to the "harsh desert environment", of purposefully forcing an action to fail, when they've every ability to make it succeed?
Quote from: evilcabbage on November 29, 2013, 12:08:11 PM
So I should waste effort to parry when I can duck and cut him in half. Great idea.
Armed single combat does not work the way you think it works.
When two people engage each other with swords, they are not big lumbering fools lazily swiping at each other like a movie or videos same. Maybe you should watch some footage of HEMA fighters dueling with zweihanders, as an example. These are massive, heavy swords, and they are absurdly fast and agile.
Riev's proposed scenario is why I found this idea interesting. I agree that training in combat isn't THAT big of a deal and you can uae drinking to handle it. But if in Riev's scenario the PC tried to mask their skill with drinking it wouldn't work or make sense. This idea would give us more options.
Also. Sun Tzu wrote, "If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles... if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." This is why I found the idea interesting. It's also a classic trope in countless books/stories/anime/comics, you name it. And it's realistic.
But is it a fluffy add on that only proves useful in limited situations? And are there much simpler ways of getting around the core goal of hiding your true capability? Yes, so I agree with all the counterpoints too. In Riev's scenario, you could see that person switching to a weapon and style they're unskilled in to fool the Legion. But people, stop saying the idea itself isn't without merit.
If your PC isn't drinking recruits under the table while beating their asses they aren't meant to be in a combat leadership role.
Even then though Harmless... your offense and defense scores will betray your years of training. A 40day warrior with master slashing is still MORE than decent with an axe.
Quote from: evilcabbage on November 29, 2013, 02:54:46 AM
I think it was mentioned that going to sparring drunk was actually considered abuse and was frowned upon heavily by staff.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... Is this for real?
Quote from: TheWanderer on November 29, 2013, 03:40:23 PM
Quote from: evilcabbage on November 29, 2013, 02:54:46 AM
I think it was mentioned that going to sparring drunk was actually considered abuse and was frowned upon heavily by staff.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... Is this for real?
If you get intoxicated specifically for the purpose of failing skills in order to raise them, I think is what they're talking about. I do remember that being mentioned somewhere once. Though it's more like when you do this intentionally with no IC reason repeatedly/habitually. Having to attend sparring after a drinking party or IC binge or because you are always drunk (alcoholic, etc.) wouldn't fall into this category. It's not really as useful as people in this thread are making it sound, though, and has its own set of problems.
Quote from: evilcabbage on November 29, 2013, 10:22:38 AM
Do you know what ducking does when someone is swinging at your neck?
Well, if we're still talking medieval longsword: likely it just gets your head in the way instead, as swords move in diagonal arcs, not horizontal.
Quote from: evilcabbage on November 29, 2013, 10:22:38 AMOr what weaving does when the guy is trying to jab you in the face?
It gets you killed. The tip of a blade moves, and tracks, much faster than a punch does.
You seriously need to check out ARMA, the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, and some of their live sparring vids.
Quote from: evilcabbage on November 29, 2013, 10:22:38 AM
Also, you say simpler. I think Morgenes just explained that the code changes necessary to make this possible are a near-monumental feat that are difficult enough where it's almost infeasible to perform such a task.
I don't think you understood me. I was suggesting a small targeted change at the point of combat calculation which would give the desired effects for combat alone without having to change vast numbers of skills, i.e. getting most of the effect without requiring monumental changes. And yes, I'm a coder, and a former RPI coder to boot - I rolled out the wounds code on Harshlands a decade back.
There is no such thing as a small targetted chance where all of this code is involved. You literally cannot just lower the weapon skill to lower your ability to fight, there are -so- many other things that come into account.
Quote from: evilcabbage on November 29, 2013, 06:59:06 PM
There is no such thing as a small targetted chance where all of this code is involved. You literally cannot just lower the weapon skill to lower your ability to fight, there are -so- many other things that come into account.
That wasn't my suggestion; may I encourage you to read the second last sentence of the suggestion post again? And if you don't know much about code, don't worry about it, just please be assured it's a suggestion that would require substantially less work than the original request, as it affects only the handful of combat skills instead of all skills, and might even be implementable without writing code specialised to any combat skills at all.
Along the lines of Quick's suggestion (which is far easier than the original request of every skill throughout the game), would be the ability to 'pull your punches', i.e. intentionally not swing hard. Not necessarily without skill, but basically reduction in damage (dropping strength bonus, and/or just capping damage).
Or like a sparring mode (unknown how it would be initiated, maybe a 'spar' command) where you don't actually make contact, but instead take stamina drain with every swing.
Quote from: Morgenes on November 29, 2013, 10:37:49 PM
Along the lines of Quick's suggestion (which is far easier than the original request of every skill throughout the game), would be the ability to 'pull your punches', i.e. intentionally not swing hard. Not necessarily without skill, but basically reduction in damage (dropping strength bonus, and/or just capping damage).
Or like a sparring mode (unknown how it would be initiated, maybe a 'spar' command) where you don't actually make contact, but instead take stamina drain with every swing.
Here's a thread on that topic some of you might find interesting:
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,36930.0.html
Now THAT'S a good idea Morg.
Sparring causing stam/stun would be rad.
Quote from: Morgenes on November 29, 2013, 10:37:49 PM
Or like a sparring mode (unknown how it would be initiated, maybe a 'spar' command) where you don't actually make contact, but instead take stamina drain with every swing.
I'm going to chime in and say I think that's a great idea.
All those poor runners being thrown in the latrines though! D:
Quote from: bcw81 on November 30, 2013, 01:45:54 AM
All those poor runners being thrown in the latrines though! D:
Builds character!
;)
I like the idea of pulling punches.. sparring mode sounds like it could get seriously complicated and also removes the opportunity for someone to intentionally hurt their sparring opponent.
Make 'spar' a toggle, where as you get more skilled you do less real damage and more stun/stamina damage. It's a trade off so that the better skilled you are, the better control you have, so the less unintentional damage you deal in combat.
This could also lead to the ability to focus on knocking something out - hitting it with the flat of your blade, etc. - rather than killing it, which might be useful for some groups/clans/people.
This thread is turning into 'ways to make grinding easier'.
The initial idea to 'conceal' your true skill level is perfect and would be amazing for RP while still using code and not being obvious about it.
Quote from: Zerero on December 01, 2013, 09:38:41 PM
This thread is turning into 'ways to make grinding easier'.
The initial idea to 'conceal' your true skill level is perfect and would be amazing for RP while still using code and not being obvious about it.
Dude, read the thread. Spar mode -negates- skill gains.
Quote from: maxid on December 01, 2013, 07:14:01 PM
Make 'spar' a toggle, where as you get more skilled you do less real damage and more stun/stamina damage. It's a trade off so that the better skilled you are, the better control you have, so the less unintentional damage you deal in combat.
This could also lead to the ability to focus on knocking something out - hitting it with the flat of your blade, etc. - rather than killing it, which might be useful for some groups/clans/people.
I like this a lot, actually.
Quote from: evilcabbage on December 01, 2013, 09:46:31 PM
Quote from: Zerero on December 01, 2013, 09:38:41 PM
This thread is turning into 'ways to make grinding easier'.
The initial idea to 'conceal' your true skill level is perfect and would be amazing for RP while still using code and not being obvious about it.
Dude, read the thread. Spar mode -negates- skill gains.
The OP's 'spar mode' is supposed to negate skill gains. I'm commenting on the separate/different ideas that have been posted through pages two, three and four.
Pretty sure I can state that every single idea presented in this thread has pretty much been made with that in mind - with the exception of the change to sparring weapons.
what possible reason would people spar if it negated skill gains
Because spar mode would be an equalizer to allow you to participate in combat against a lesser foe and be semi-equally matched, which means you don't destroy him in rapid fire. You don't get to gain skill. Your opponent does.
Wouldn't that just make going to sparring as a tuff guy as much of a chore as 'General tidying of the complex'?
Quote from: MeTekillot on December 02, 2013, 01:25:55 AM
Wouldn't that just make going to sparring as a tuff guy as much of a chore as 'General tidying of the complex'?
Nobody said you have to turn it on. Duh.
I'm ridiculously keen on this idea.
If you have anything other than, and sometimes even if you have, a warrior PC it can be horrendously dangerous to spar the clan leaders or even older stumps with high str. You can die in one fell swoop. While that unpredictability makes sparring exciting, to lose a well thought out PC to a one shot from a vet would be heartbreaking.
Pretty much what everyone has said about skill gains etc has been spot on. Awesome idea I hadn't even thought about.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on December 02, 2013, 12:45:57 AM
Pretty sure I can state that every single idea presented in this thread has pretty much been made with that in mind - with the exception of the change to sparring weapons.
oh. I can dig it. 8)
Always a useful reminder:
Mercy off does not make you hit harder. It makes you look like a tool when you murder your clan's newbies and try to knock them silly when they run away though.
(http://cocktailsg.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/the-more-you-know.png)
Mr. M and I here are in agreement.
Y'all seriously want a spar mode that will negate skill gain? ???
Yeah that would get used like .00001% of the time.
Quote from: Delirium on December 02, 2013, 12:08:56 PM
Mr. M and I here are in agreement.
Y'all seriously want a spar mode that will negate skill gain? ???
Yeah that would get used like .00001% of the time.
I promise I would use it. It's ludicrous when I have characters that try to fucking decapitate every new runner/recruit they face off with. It's often so un-IC it's frustrating.
That said, I far prefer the skill-lowering ideas for concealing your abilities in general. I totally understand Morg's point about the complexity, though. It would just be soooooo nice.
Drunk-fighting as a solution is crap, and it's a poor fit for many characters. Using unfamiliar weapons and "off hand" stuff is little better, due to the other skill checks thrown into combat rounds, but I think it's one of the best solutions we currently have available. Combining that with judicious use of disengage and nosave combat works, yeah. It's possible to go on the offensive and back off again. The problem is, you get caught up in your command delay after killing/kicking/whatever and in the meantime fucking murderize your opponent. I would prefer some level of control rather than offense off/on.
I thought the "holding heavy stuff technique" was against the rules now? I hope it still is, anyway.
MeTekillot, sometimes people want to pulverize their sparring partners. If your PC can't dodge a sparring stick swipe in the ring, how are they going to know how to gtfo properly when the stakes are much higher?
Which leads to my main reservation with sparring mode or skill limits. Such self-nerfing may be OOCly expected and demanded by some players. It shouldn't be. Clearly, I feel the same way about mercy in its current incarnation. I don't just ooc a nub to turn on mercy, I tell them to turn on mercy if they don't want to purposefully or accidentally kill someone. There shouldn't be OOC expectations of safety or PC behavior beyond what's outlined in the game docs. But I digress, I just wanted to point out the one reservation I had concerning these ideas, besides the difficulty of implementing them, of course!
sparring is enough of a chore that making it also codedly pointless would just be the nail in the coffin...
You guys are really over-complicating things anyway. I maintain my stance that it's currently very possible to train newbies without killing them.
edit: to clarify, I'm behind 'pulling blows' to reduce damage. I am not behind this 'no skillgain sparring mode' thing. Reduced skillgain? Sure. None? Ppff, nobody will use it after the shiny has worn off. They'll just go back to finding the current coded ways around the limitations we have. Trust me.
/soapbox
We should all just play morbidly obese merchants. Problem solved.
Quote from: MeTekillot on December 02, 2013, 12:06:37 PM
Always a useful reminder:
Mercy off does not make you hit harder. It makes you look like a tool when you murder your clan's newbies and try to knock them silly when they run away though.
It's also an accident a lot of the time. At least for me.
Quote from: Delirium on December 02, 2013, 12:30:55 PM
You guys are really over-complicating things anyway. I maintain my stance that it's currently very possible to train newbies without killing them.
I agree with Delerium 100%. By reading this board you'd think that newbies get murderized on a daily basis just by stepping into the sparring ring with a long lived veteran combat PC. I don't really think that's the case at all?
I'm more in favor of the original idea than a "pull your punches" mode, but if "pull punches" mode goes in, it definitely still ought to allow for skill gains, or else I don't see the value. If given the choice between using a skill-gain-less "spar mode" or just roleplaying out sparring with someone with emotes, I'd prefer to just emote it, because I think at least I could RP out a more entertaining sparring scene than the code can give me.
I'm not even really thinking of it in terms of sparring, because I can't stand sparring and generally avoid it whenever possible. I like the idea because it would be useful in group settings in crafting halls, when maybe you're "this close" to being a master crafter, but don't want your clannies to see how you rarely ever fail the "journeyman-level" stuff for whatever reason.
Or if you -want- to fail being sneaky, so no one knows how sneaky you truly are. There are ways to intentionally fail at several different skills (forage rock for [a stone that can't be found in this spot where other stones can be found] for example). But there aren't ways to intentionally fail at other skills. I think of intentional failure as a roleplay device. Adding this to the game, would add it to the already excellent selection of roleplay devices.
I just wanna be able to knock stuff out, hence my idea. :'(
Easy fix for the combat one ....
just make a setting for how hard you want to hit?
Continuing from my earlier comment .... if it just lowers the damage then it wouldnt affect skills at all in the first place so my thinking says it wouldnt be all that complicated wouldbit?
If there's any sort of calculations involved in damage-dealing besides "Weapon does x damage" then you will find that it gets maddeningly more complex with every single little variable you add to it.
have a setting to ensure it only does -scrathingly- damage easy fix its a whole lot less complicated uf you dont over think it guys that said just give it a go and see if it works if not ditch it and gofir some other projects instead easy right ... the staff can code let tgem worry about that you guys just worry about this is a kick ass idea
I think for sparring applications we have the ability to tone down our attacks by just defending, don't we? Isn't there a command so that you just defend? At the worst, you can carry two shield or no weapons.
For crafting mistakes (pretending you aren't good) can't we just roleplay it? That's what we're doing here right? Roleplaying? Not roll-playing. So make a custom message about failing and trust your player friends to go with it.
I think we trying to use code to fix a role-playing problem that wouldn't exist if we just let go of the code for a moment. It seems to me this is a little like the cloak/mask raider problem - which is not a problem if we just role-play a little.
I think that after years of practice even very good swordsman or crafter will give a lot of clues as to their skill with the way they handle a weapon, tools how they approach an objective way before they ever "succeed" or "fail." Just being comfortable drawing a sword and holding "en garde" will give you a whole lot of information about the ability of that person. We should role-play our deceptions (and allow ourselves to be deceived, of course) and not look to the code to play for us.
At least not in this instance, I think.
Just defending doesn't help your recruit get any better at his defenses, unfortunately, which is the whole point.
Quote from: Refugee on December 03, 2013, 09:45:41 AM
Just defending doesn't help your recruit get any better at his defenses, unfortunately, which is the whole point.
However, one brutal slash/bash/pierce/chop to the neck, doing horrendous damage does tend to do count as a failure on their defense. Also, unless you're a mul or half giant, or a particularly strong dwarf, that one hit wont kill anyone.
Quote from: bcw81 on December 03, 2013, 11:21:23 AM
Quote from: Refugee on December 03, 2013, 09:45:41 AM
Just defending doesn't help your recruit get any better at his defenses, unfortunately, which is the whole point.
However, one brutal slash/bash/pierce/chop to the neck, doing horrendous damage does tend to do count as a failure on their defense. Also, unless you're a mul or half giant, or a particularly strong dwarf, that one hit wont kill anyone.
It may count as a failure, but it could also happen just as they were trying to disengage/flee at a certain portion of their HP. Hope you had mercy flee on.
Quote from: bcw81 on December 03, 2013, 11:21:23 AM
Quote from: Refugee on December 03, 2013, 09:45:41 AM
Just defending doesn't help your recruit get any better at his defenses, unfortunately, which is the whole point.
However, one brutal slash/bash/pierce/chop to the neck, doing horrendous damage does tend to do count as a failure on their defense. Also, unless you're a mul or half giant, or a particularly strong dwarf, that one hit wont kill anyone.
Very true, but it's lousy for roleplay when you can just have time to type attack/disengage before someone's in danger or unconscious. And you don't have to be any of those three for it to happen.
It's unrealistic that a fighter of even moderate skill can't pull punches.
Quote from: DustMight on December 03, 2013, 08:54:03 AM
We should role-play our deceptions (and allow ourselves to be deceived, of course) and not look to the code to play for us.
Until the code allows me to play a lazy warrior that wants to fake being a crappy fighter so he can avoid expectations and responsibility.... I'm not sure how this is gonna work.
I can emote and roleplay blunders and fuckups all day, but when I send everyone to the medic after a round or three of sparring-- they know.
Same goes for intentionally failing at crafting. I can just "emote fucks up something fierce" as I junk the materials, but it'll be only a matter of time before people catch on.
Same goes for intentionally failing a backstab on your friend because someone paid you to kill them even though you -really- don't want to and have little choice in the matter. Sure. You can emote the whole of it, but don't for a second think everything will play out as if you'd codedly failed a backstab.
Same goes for pretty much any skill.
Some of it really situational. Some of it not.
You can say, "Well if there's no skill gain, nobody will ever use this, ever." all you want.
But you don't know.
You're just assuming and underestimating the playerbase.
That's kinda not cool.
The more coded RP devices at our disposal, the better.
That's what makes this better than a MUSH.
Have my children, CA123.
I'm not against being able to intentionally fail skills, unfortunately, an overall 'fail mode' was said to be too complicated to implement right now.
I'm still baffled at this hyperbolic focus on sparring damage/difficulty. You're still sparring within the safety of a compound and a clan, what more do you want, triple-padded suit horror bodysuits and pillow fights? Don't answer that, please...
a) a 'spar mode' with no skillgain completely defeats the purpose of sparring
b) 'pulling blows' was mentioned as feasible and I can back that idea, but it should not be foolproof (just as mercy is not).
c) I am not for removing all elements of danger from sparring. Sparring a half-giant or a mul or a master of weapon x SHOULD be dangerous...
d) and the teach command, shield use, disengage, mercy, and unarmed combat are really all you need.
I'm all for code being as flexible and all-encompassing as possible, but harping on this subject seems a little irrelevant by now...
Well.... Initially the idea was "set your skill level"-- which, thinking about it.... Would it really be that hard to code? If I'm not mistaken, the framework for something like this is totally already in place, (special app skill bumps wouldn't be possible otherwise) and with a bit of tweaking could be made to "not increase beyond current max skill level and cut skillgain entirely or a little" before being made available to players. I know next to nothing about coding, so maybe it would be prohibitively hard and time-consuming, but whatever.
But yeah... When did this discussion become about sparring?
The OP's suggestion would fix any problems pertaining to beating the crap out of/killing nublets, if you wanna go that route and risk not skilling up.
As said, if you don't want to lose skillgains, you can just... Y'know. Do what we do already, but it's not like the MAXXED WARRIOR in a "MAXXED WARRIOR vs. poor nub clannie" matchup will be seeing any skillgain from ripping the kid in half on the first round anyhow.
Quote from: Morgenes on November 29, 2013, 01:14:34 AM
Quote from: Twilight on November 29, 2013, 12:04:18 AM
As to the complications of code, couldn't you make the command put an affect on the character (removed when they reset their skill) that would be a simple minus to skill, and thus work like an equipped crafting tool, essentially, on the ultimate skill level of the person?
Not really, no.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on November 28, 2013, 11:55:11 PM
I should say that once you have a method to change a PC's skill level from a to b, and store the value for a, so that the PC can change it back to a, it should become pretty easy to apply it to all skills. It's not skill checks that I'd think you have to worry about - it's the literal skill level that governs those checks.
Isn't it?
The issue is that how skill level is pulled varies from command to command. It has been standardized somewhat, but it's not 100%. I'm probably over speaking the complication, but it is significant effort to make sure that every retrieval of a skill throughout the over 500 skills that are in the game to make sure they all will work properly, as well as make sure they all handle gains differently, so each will have to be handled to cut learning.
Beyond that combat complicates things further due to the sheer number of skills that are incorporated into one melee round. If any one of those is being intentionally nerfed (by this command you guys are proposing), it would have to potentially block all learning from combat. I'd be concerned about missing a skill gain.
Remember back like, pages ago, when I said that arguing the merits of this ability BEYOND SPARRING would be worth a discussion?
Or are we ALL just stuck on "Not killing other people". This command, as explained, isn't about "not killing Recruits" as much as it is "intentionally failing/being less than your best".
Quote from: Delirium on December 03, 2013, 08:42:35 PM
Quote from: Morgenes on November 29, 2013, 01:14:34 AM
Quote from: Twilight on November 29, 2013, 12:04:18 AM
As to the complications of code, couldn't you make the command put an affect on the character (removed when they reset their skill) that would be a simple minus to skill, and thus work like an equipped crafting tool, essentially, on the ultimate skill level of the person?
Not really, no.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on November 28, 2013, 11:55:11 PM
I should say that once you have a method to change a PC's skill level from a to b, and store the value for a, so that the PC can change it back to a, it should become pretty easy to apply it to all skills. It's not skill checks that I'd think you have to worry about - it's the literal skill level that governs those checks.
Isn't it?
The issue is that how skill level is pulled varies from command to command. It has been standardized somewhat, but it's not 100%. I'm probably over speaking the complication, but it is significant effort to make sure that every retrieval of a skill throughout the over 500 skills that are in the game to make sure they all will work properly, as well as make sure they all handle gains differently, so each will have to be handled to cut learning.
Beyond that combat complicates things further due to the sheer number of skills that are incorporated into one melee round. If any one of those is being intentionally nerfed (by this command you guys are proposing), it would have to potentially block all learning from combat. I'd be concerned about missing a skill gain.
Well.
Again.
If you're beating someone's ass hard enough to
have to "pull punches" every morning, it's safe to assume you're succeeding every time your combat skills are checked.
That is to say, you're not gaining skills anyway. (unless everything in my life is a lie and you
do skill up significantly upon success)
So what's the big deal?
Quote from: Riev on December 03, 2013, 08:45:04 PM
Remember back like, pages ago, when I said that arguing the merits of this ability BEYOND SPARRING would be worth a discussion?
Or are we ALL just stuck on "Not killing other people". This command, as explained, isn't about "not killing Recruits" as much as it is "intentionally failing/being less than your best".
Very true, but the record appears to keep skipping.
Maybe the people who think no one will use this if there's no skill gain think neither party will gain skills. But what we mean is that the advanced fighter will not gain skills, the newb certainly still will.
Yeah sorry for just talking about sparring. This would be most useful for spying, and not showing up your superiors.
Delirium has a bug up her bonnet about the idea. She's chosen her side, set her heels, and damn any new evidence to the contrary so it's not worth arguing with her on this. She'll either keep rehashing the same old, defeated, arguments or toss in an appeal to authority just to try and shut down conversation. It's kind of silly.
In any case, actually discussing, there is no reason (save code annoyance) not to implement this. As ClanAlt pointed out, there are countless scenarios where this would be a boon. There's no actual solid argument against this that has been presented (again, save code annoyance) so I'd like to put my vote in for it as well.
Heh, nice try, man - if you actually read through the thread it's fairly obvious I've supported/suggested various ideas, including the skill wide fail option currently being touted (which is the same one that got shot down in my quoted post). I've stood firm on the training issue, yes. I've read nothing convincing to contradict my actual ingame experiences.
I'll bow out, though. There's not much left for me to say that I haven't already said. :)
Quote from: maxid on December 05, 2013, 12:46:30 PM
Delirium has a bug up her bonnet about the idea. She's chosen her side, set her heels, and damn any new evidence to the contrary so it's not worth arguing with her on this. She'll either keep rehashing the same old, defeated, arguments or toss in an appeal to authority just to try and shut down conversation. It's kind of silly.
In any case, actually discussing, there is no reason (save code annoyance) not to implement this. As ClanAlt pointed out, there are countless scenarios where this would be a boon. There's no actual solid argument against this that has been presented (again, save code annoyance) so I'd like to put my vote in for it as well.
Do you just say things and not know what you're saying, or are you trying to pick a fight with Delirium? You seriously need to start reading the posts here, Delirium isn't -against- the idea, she's against what some of the ideas people are stating would entail.