I've just skimmed through the thread...

My opinions

I like the fact that you have a small chance of failure no matter how high your skill is.
Personally I don't like caps. The way skills are used (sp / (sp + diff) ) maks it impossible to make a GOD character.. Even if the player has 100,000 points in a skill and tries to do something with difficulty 300 he has about 1% chance of failure. He's REALLY good at what he does, but he's not god. + Noone will become ultimately good in skill. If 1000 is max then the only reason to keep it active is to not lose it.
Active skill slots is a good idea, but make it possible for the character to use all skills he has at least 1 point in, but not to gain points even if he does get a critical.

Skill decay: Personally I don't like it. I think it should at least be quicker to relearn something. If you have a crew of 15 people then it's not a biggie, because everyone will have their "station" anyway. By making it very expensive/hard/time consuming to get very high skill levels most people won't be bothered to make the helmsman with 1000 in piloting also become a master sniper, but I think it should be possible.

Raising skills: The learning curve should be (very) steep for the first (few) point and then get a bit less steep for a while and then steeper and steeper. Example: It's very difficult to learn to read if you don't even know the letters, but it gets easier after a while. When you're good it's very hard to learn something new because you already know so much.

One system of difficulty of raising skills I've seen and liked is the RuneQuest/Call of Chtuluh PnPRPG system (possibly modified )
Skills are in percentage, but you can have more than 100% in a skill. To score you must roll below what the skill rating, so if skill is 50% you must roll 50 or below. The lowest 5% of your skill is critical so for 50% you need 2.5 (3) or lower (1 is always a critical). A special is the lowest 10 or 20 % of your skill (5 or 10 in my example). Everything over 50 is a failure, top 5% of faliure is critical failure, etc. 100 is a "special event". Something weird happens - it's both a success and a failure at the same time (Note: This was added by my DM ).
To raise a skill you need to get 2 specials (Or possibly criticals - it's been a long time since I played ), and then roll OVER your current skill rating or a 100. So for 50sp you need 51 or over, and for 100sp and up you need a 100. If you succed you get 1-6 points. If not you must get another special/critical (possibly 2) to try again. Note: this makes for slightly rapid growth to 100 and then becomes linear with very slow growt. I think something like this could be adapted.
-- Sorry for the long winded explanation.. It sounds silly and rash compared to your approach, but after writing it I don't have the heart to delete it . Maybe you get an idea by reading it.

Experience rating (green,vet,elite etc): I don't quite get this. If it If a character has a high score in a ability then it follows that he's also experienced. It's illogical that an elite who has 100 in shooting has an advantage over a green with 300 in shooting (At least I think he has - probability/statistical math is not my strong side ). The one with 300 is the better shot. Perhaps it would be better to call it a "pressure under fire" modifier or something.


Summary - things that may be great for one game can be lousy for another.. It's the whole that counts. These are just my opinions, and they're not even really well thought through (I think my idea for no cap for skill points is a good one at least )

Sorry about the edit.. My computer started beeping because it got overheated (56deg C.. cpu is rated for 85deg C), so I shut it down for a while..

[edited by - frostburn on April 7, 2004 6:36:30 AM]

I like the idea of a more complex learning curve. Maybe you could link it to experience level. For a green character, it''ll be a steep uphill battle, best fought in the classroom rather than on the job, but a regular will have enough rudimentary know-how to pick up on new technologies and gain skills pretty quickly. A veteran will be sharp, but since they already know most of the techniques, it''s going to be slower progress for them, dealing mainly with honing fine skills or using new equipment. For an elite, they know just about all they can, and what progress they make will be like the progress a master martial artist makes: They''ll get better and more confident, but so slowly that the average person won''t really be able to tell the difference in them over the course of a month or so.

I''m just going to say this:

Why are you having skill decay? Can you honestly say that you truly have forgotten anything? Yeah, I can''t remember the names of the postulates from Geometry class and I rarely do anything with Geometry, but I sure as heck can still do the actual work. Heck, I can still work out probabilities and statistics easily enough.

On a similar note, I hadn''t fired a rifle in 10+ years (since I got out of the Army) and recently went out shooting. I shot almost exactly the same as I did when I was in the Army, or 90% kill shots.

BTW, I haven''t went swimming in a couple of years, are you saying that I should drown the next time I''m in water over my head? What about riding a bike? Haven''t done that in even longer... I''ll be a fool with scrapes and bruises all over the place if I live in a universe with skill decay.

Let''s just say that I''m very happy the real universe doesn''t have skill decay.

If you want to keep people from mastering everything, make skillups based upon difficulty (chance of skillup = success rate ^ 2), so that the chance of getting a skillup when your skill is at 100k and the difficulty is 300 is (3/1003 ^ 2), or (.0000089). Then you can decrease the chance of a skillup based upon total skill amount, so if someone''s skill total is at... say 300,000 and you want the ''softcap'' to be at 250k, their chance of gaining that skillup is 20% lower (300k - 250k / 250k). They''ll still get the skillups, but it will slow down significantly, suggesting that everyone can''t do everything... at least not completely competently.

Well, that''s my $9.28

It depends on how sophisticated the task is. I''m a juggler, and picking that back up after a few months'' hiatus makes the reality of skill decay totally apparent.

Solinear, can you honestly say that you would get the same grade on a Geometry test now that you got when you were just finished with the course? Maybe you remember some of the logical structure of proofs, but if you wouldn''t be at least slower doing the proofs and exercises, then you''ve got a real gift for mathematics. I took calculus in high school, and then again four years later in college. I picked it up quickly, and did very well in the class, but there''s no way I could have taken the final exam when I walked in the door, even though the material was all review for me.

Maybe you can still ride a bike, but do you think you''d be as fast or as precise at trail-riding? Maybe you can still swim, but do you think you''ll swim as quickly or as skillfully? The ability to hit a stationary man-sized target center-of mass with a properly calibrated rifle is like being able to throw a rock into the air and catch it again. It is a very simple task, and children can do it with little or no practice. When I go out and train the firearms skills I gained in the police academy, skill decay is obvious. I can still punch small groups in the paper, but my draw, my speed, my reload speed, my responses to failure-to-fire or body armor drills, my use of cover and my precision of movement are all reduced. Can I still shoot a 300? Probably. Would I want to be in a gunfight with the version of me that graduated from the academy? Probably not. He was faster, sharper and had a better command of tactics. He was also stronger and about ten pounds lighter. Lousy college. I could get back there, and it wouldn''t take as long as it did the first time, but I''m not there now.

quote:

---

Original post by solinear
Why are you having skill decay?

---

I wasn''t doing it for reality''s sake, only for the sake of those who wanted to reconfigure characters they''d put alot of time into. There''s nothing worse than investing in a character for hours and hours only to find that they are unsuited for the task.

quote:

---

If you want to keep people from mastering everything, make skillups based upon difficulty (chance of skillup = success rate ^ 2), so that the chance of getting a skillup when your skill is at 100k and the difficulty is 300 is (3/1003 ^ 2), or (.0000089). Then you can decrease the chance of a skillup based upon total skill amount, so if someone''s skill total is at... say 300,000 and you want the ''softcap'' to be at 250k, their chance of gaining that skillup is 20% lower (300k - 250k / 250k). They''ll still get the skillups, but it will slow down significantly, suggesting that everyone can''t do everything... at least not completely competently.

---

Won''t this just increase the amount of useless skill attempts towards the end? Perhaps if I could make this somehow an interactive challenge it could work, but I''m loathe to have anything like what Morrowind is when you first begin learning skills: A lot of clicking to attempt to raise skills and a lot of boring failure.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote:

---

Original post by TechnoGoth
Here''s an idea to prevent jack of all trads, why not impose a total skill point cap? Say based on the primary stat for each skill point so if a npc has 75 intellagence that could amount to 75* 200 = 15000 max skill points for intellagence based skills. In this mannor the player can still choose to take alot of diffrent skills however the cost is an overall low level to those skills or take a view skills and have them at higher levels.

---

I think I like this idea more than the idea of an individual skill cap. It allows for flexibility and can be tied to an Intellect stat, and also makes the player think strategically. Thanks!



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote:

---

Original post by frostburn
I like the fact that you have a small chance of failure no matter how high your skill is.

---

Yes, while there''s still the odd chance that you could fumble while being godly, and that might be annoying from time to time, there''s also the chance that you could escape being swatted like a fly by a godly enemy. And I like the small bit of paranoia that says, "You can never be perfect."

quote:

---

Active skill slots is a good idea, but make it possible for the character to use all skills he has at least 1 point in, but not to gain points even if he does get a critical.

---

I again worry about YOU the player getting overwhelmed trying to figure out who has what, but maybe this is best left to the player to manage their own difficulty level? If you end up with a ton of skills, you''ll probably more likely memorize the highest ones that are important to you anyway. (Hopefully).

quote:

---

Skill decay: Personally I don''t like it. I think it should at least be quicker to relearn something. If you have a crew of 15 people then it''s not a biggie, because everyone will have their "station" anyway. By making it very expensive/hard/time consuming to get very high skill levels most people won''t be bothered to make the helmsman with 1000 in piloting also become a master sniper, but I think it should be possible.

---

Okay, I think I''ve heard this one enough that I''d better comply.

quote:

---

Raising skills: The learning curve should be (very) steep for the first (few) point and then get a bit less steep for a while and then steeper and steeper. Example: It''s very difficult to learn to read if you don''t even know the letters, but it gets easier after a while. When you''re good it''s very hard to learn something new because you already know so much.

---

As a player which would you want more: Starting characters that are easier to train with the little cash you have, or a more realistic training system?

quote:

---

One system of difficulty of raising skills I''ve seen and liked is the RuneQuest/Call of Chtuluh PnPRPG system (possibly modified )
...

---

Thx! This gives me ideas!

quote:

---

Experience rating (green,vet,elite etc): I don''t quite get this. If it If a character has a high score in a ability then it follows that he''s also experienced. It''s illogical that an elite who has 100 in shooting has an advantage over a green with 300 in shooting (At least I think he has - probability/statistical math is not my strong side ). The one with 300 is the better shot. Perhaps it would be better to call it a "pressure under fire" modifier or something.

---

Yes, maybe the name should be changed, but that was essentially the difference: Having book knowledge and simulator training, versus actual training. I can also make this make more sense if I skill cap certain combat skills by experience rank, so that Elites couldn''t have less than Greens.

Thx!


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote:

---

Original post by Wavinator
Having book knowledge and simulator training, versus actual training. I can also make this make more sense if I skill cap certain combat skills by experience rank, so that Elites couldn''t have less than Greens.

---

This might not be necessary. After all, you can surely have an encyclopedic knowledge of something without any real combat experience. Have the skill level determine the probability of success per skill attempt, and have the experience level determine the requisite success rate, as you do, and that should be fine.

A new guy with a whole lot of technical know-how might be able to figure out how to do something, but an elite with some rudimentary skills would have better instincts about it, and so would be able to cram something together that would work based on his vast experience with it, even if he didn''t ace the exit exams back in the academy.

Hmm Im gettin my ass kicked for saying this BUT
I do like the skill decay, it is very realistic. I breakdance for 2 years now, in het beginning my teacher told me I couldnt do anything right, I could better go and play chess.

But after some months, I improved, after some months I improved ALLOT now im in the demo team, doing contests been to america for the world championships, so there is your skill decay and increase.

But Ive been moving to another place that alone took me like a small 4 months, and still ofcourse Im able to dance very well, but im rusty like hell, man I feel like a 90 year old.
This will improve when ive been to a few trainings again, but it still takes a little time, my muscles hurt and stil have to get used to those heavy legswoops, freezes and such.

So skill decay is somehwat realistic when done right I guess ?

I had looked at doing skill decay with limiters and bonuses.

Example: You obtain a skill of 1200 in "jooboo jaba" (yes, random nonsense word skill), but don''t use it for a week, so you start decaying. However, you have a limitation on your decay (say half of your maximum skill) and reclaiming your past glory would be much easier (triple or quadruple skillups until you hit your previous max) and after you hit your previous max you continue as normal.

I had a number of people argue against it, both completely against skill decay and against whatever. I may end up doing something similar, but it''s hard to say.

In games the period of time involved is so small usually (weeks or months, not years) that there is little chance that skill decay would ever take a real effect (more than 10% of a skill''s total) because the player can see the numbers and ''touching up'' a skill would end up being pretty easy unless the player has completely abandoned the skill. That might just be because I hate total skill caps (though I''m not opposed to individual skill caps necessarily). Of course, you could always make skill decay based upon skill total, so that the more your skill total, the shorter time between not working up a skill and skill decay starting and the higher the decay rate. That might be the best solution for what you would actually want.