Well, basically, this is the system that is put into place in my text-based ORPG. And it works quite fine, though some people coming from other ORPG are pissed that my Vets can be killed by Newcomers, only through sheer luck.

Quote:

Original post by Fournicolas Well, basically, this is the system that is put into place in my text-based ORPG. And it works quite fine, though some people coming from other ORPG are pissed that my Vets can be killed by Newcomers, only through sheer luck.

That's what I would like, though not through "sheer luck" as you put it, but through actual skill (Player skill, not characters alone) and character "development".

Well I think that a combination of skill growth through both training and through use would ultimately be most realistic. You start with some instruction, then re-enforce through use and occasionally get retrained.

In our MMO we were planning to have a firing range be installable in player cities, so perhaps you could go to the trainer to start...then of course use your skill in battle, then perhaps train yourself higher by going back to the trainer.
You'd have to implement guards against macroing, but those would be in place for the skill per-use system anyway. Heck you could even make training some skills a mini-game that was random every time.

To me, the idea of an xp bar is anathema...i dont want a level grind for points that you spend. I havent played much Morrowind but doesnt it have a system that levels you up in the skill you use with an additional set of general points to be spent in other places you choose?

Quote:

Original post by Kest I don't agree with the idea that the second is more realistic. First of all, you don't only grow in abilites when you succeed. If anything, you grow more when you fail. Hacking on a tree with an axe will increase your strength much more than hacking on monsters or people. Swinging a sword into thin air for hours on end will promote your abilities just as much as sinking it into the flesh of an enemy. Of course games cannot allow this, as it gives players a way to do free training. So out with most of the realism so we can wall them in. One realization that a lot of people are missing is that spending points to increase abilities could reflect training. Believe it or not, skills are normally improved much more in training than in use. In real life, the last place you're going to want to learn how to sword fight is with something trying to kill you. It's the least likely time to let your mind ponder new ideas. This isn't true with all activities, but always with fighting. People come up with new ideas and strategies outside of the conflict, then test them during the action. This 'testing' could represent your level up. You've mastered what you've trained for and so now it's time to study new ideas.

Hm, I disagree. Regarding realism, hacking on a tree with an axe is completly different from fighting monsters. When hacking a tree, your strength will increase more than fighting, but fighting monsters is more towards increasing your skills in live combat which is entirely different from your strength and speed developed with practice (like hacking on a tree). Let me explain. Let's say your training with a sword by yourself in an open field by swinging it around and practicing all the things your master showed you. Well, in this situation, your becoming stronger, faster and more agile, as well as being able to hold and control your sword better. Now your entering combat with a living breathing monster. Alot of more things come into play here, like being able to read your opponent and tell what it will do next, judging the distance
between you and your opponent, spotting the open or exposed spots on your opponent (where you should strike) and what your opponent's range of attack is. Regarding these things, unless your sparring with a partner, you just won't get that kind of experience training by yourself. Even if you do train with a partner, there are a load of other things that you will only experience in a real fight like overcoming a fear of dying. Many soldiers in combat flip because it's just too much. Even when you fail at something it's not necessarily better experience than winning, but their rather in a different category of experience. If your making an MMORPG, implementing these things would be ridiculous. Players don't want to have to judge the distance between them and their opponent. Players only want a little bit of combat content to worry about but not too much or it will just make the game to complicated. Not only would all these things ruin the game, but they would also make it harder to create.

Quote:

Original post by ozzoright Hm, I disagree. Regarding realism, hacking on a tree with an axe is completly different from fighting monsters. When hacking a tree, your strength will increase more than fighting, but fighting monsters is more towards increasing your skills in live combat which is entirely different from your strength and speed developed with practice (like hacking on a tree).

For what it's worth, I wasn't suggesting that hacking on a tree was considered training. I only mentioned it for the strength aspect.

Quote:

Now your entering combat with a living breathing monster. Alot of more things come into play here, like being able to read your opponent and tell what it will do next, judging the distance between you and your opponent, spotting the open or exposed spots on your opponent (where you should strike) and what your opponent's range of attack is.

Most of these techniques are learned in training. Fighting with a partner, especially a really good one, will grant you most of your techniques. The fact that it leaves stress out of the situation (which you noted - fear of death), allows your mind to come up with new strategies. While fighting a real opponent who's trying to end your life might add new variables into the experience, you're still learning most of the skills and techniques you need by training.

Quote:

Regarding these things, unless your sparring with a partner, you just won't get that kind of experience training by yourself.

I wouldn't call combat training much training if there was no partner. You could study your moves a bit and try coming up with new ideas, but much of it would be 'untested' without seeing your opponent's reactions.

You have to realize that my entire argument was to support the buy-skills system. Not that I think it's better than the other design. Both are great, but neither are very realistic for all abilities. I don't see anything wrong with using both. You could simply make some traits and attributes increase during activity, and allow the player to 'train' abilities that require more planning.

I don't really understand what has been said about the second being more flexible. How is that possible? You learn by doing. That means that by giving the player the ability to buy skills (first design), they could mimic the second design completely. You're just giving them more control.

edit: Perhaps the reason some think it's less flexible is because you don't level up as quickly when you're at high levels. There's another design that goes around this. It's as simple as giving the same amount of experience for each kill/success/task, no matter the character's level - then making skills with higher levels cost more experience to increase. This lets a level-100-great-sword warrior that needs to spend tons of experience to increase his sword skill spend just a few to increase his magic.

[Edited by - Kest on August 26, 2005 2:02:14 AM]