Setting ones skill level

[Delirium]

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...

[ClanAlt123]

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.

[Delirium]

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.

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.

[Riev]

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".

[ClanAlt123]

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.

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?

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.

[Refugee]

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.

[Inks]

Yeah sorry for just talking about sparring. This would be most useful for spying, and not showing up your superiors.

[maxid]

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.

[Delirium]

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.

[evilcabbage]

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.