Quote:

Original post by Mathmo And, don;t forget you are asking mainly game developers rather than game players here (not that of course we don't play games, but I'm sure everyone knows what I mean...)

I don't think there is a perfect group of people to ask. Players won't necessarily know what would cause them to have the most fun until they experience it. Even then, it may be misinterpreted. For example, I hated the war-mongering AI in Civilization IV, but I ended up heavily involved in the game because of how much I hated it.

It's the duty of game designers to see beyound the first layer, such as in that case. We need to be able to see the final result of a game because of a choice, rather than just see how the choice immediately effects the gameplay.

Quote:

Original post by Humble Hobo It's true. For some strange reason, when a gamer becomes a developer, they somehow lose the ability to know what the average gamers want. It's really bizarre, and kind of sad.

They need to spend less time inventing fun and more time figuring out what fun is. The best way to do that is to play games.

Quote:

Original post by JasRonq I should also note that I prefer the ability to permanently differentiate my character from other possibilities. For instance, choosing skills, but ultimately leveling to the point where I have taken all possible skills or maxed my stats means that I am not longer different from other choices and, to me at least, some of those early decisions lose meaning.

There are a couple of things that cause that. And I've been attempting to find things to counter it.

One of the biggest problems is the uneven ladder of RPG skill climbing. As skills become more filled, they become harder to increase, making it more worth-while to switch to increasing another skill. Eventually, you end up with nearly all skills being moderately high, but none maxed out. I tried to offset this by providing Fallout-like perks when skills are mastered. When a skill reaches 85% of maximum, the player is able to choose between a range of perks that relate to the skill. This happens again at 90%, 95%, and 100%. The perks found at 100% cause pretty dramatic effects, while those at 85% cause moderate effects.

I'm still working on some other solutions. For example, I would like to make it worth-while to train in skills that are already maxed out. Don't ask me how I plan to make that happen. I haven't gotten anywhere with it. It could be something like a long-term but temporary boost that dissipates over time. Such as each point of experience that is spent on accuracy will cause +1% damage over a period of time.

That sounds like your thought there is motivated by a want to keep the player training and using the skill; you don't want it to become unloved and underused because a player is no longer training it up and paying attention to it. I would suggest then a topless system where the player can train it up and up as long as they like. No idea how to balance that, it might not be possible, but its worth a thought.

My favorite stat system came from the old Mercenaries of Astonia (now Astonia III). You spent exp to raise your stats - levels were almost meaningless outside of an approximation of how much exp you have. As you raise stats, the cost increased exponentially. Everyone had most of the same stats, but the mage had a lower base cost of magic stats, fighter a lower cost of fighting stats, etc. The stats and skills went hand-in-hand - that is, as a mage, your only damaging spell Blast, was raised just like any other stat.

There was also 5 primary stats - Strength, Agility, Braveness, Wisdom and Intelligence. Str and agil were used in equipment requirements, making it pretty hard for the mage to get good armor on since their base cost of those were a lot higher than a fighter's. These also cost significantly more than secondary stats. But they also increased the secondary stats as they increased... I think it was something on the lines of:

secondaryStat += (PrimaryMod1 + PrimaryMod2 + PrimaryMod3) / 5

So your two-handed weapon skill, a secondary stat, would be a total of:

twoHanded += (Str + Str + Agil) / 5

If you wanted to pump out the most juice from your character, you had to take into consideration the bonuses you'd get from raising those primary stats, what you could raise directly with your secondary stats, and see which would benefit you more at the time. You could, of course, just pump up whatever looked good and do decent, but great players were often pretty specific on their stat-raising order. Unfortunately the system wasn't executed its best, resulting in most new players sucking horribly because they'd raise the wrong stats because the have no idea what they were doing.

This also resulted in insanely unique characters. Some people would pump up their resistance, which prevented negative spells being casted on them, then go after some really high level magic creatures. Others would stick to a more predictable approach, balancing between defense and offense and fight monsters their own level. Some suicidal dopes, like myself, would raise their Stun and Blast spells to an unholy level, allowing them to keep a monster "perma-stunned" (constantly stunning them between Blasts so they can never move) and take down creatures WAY beyond their level, even though they'd die in like 2-3 hits if they screw up the timing on their stun.

*takes a deep breath*

Anyways, enough with the nostalgia. I think some of the best systems (personal opinion, of course) are ones that start off basic enough to allow you to do fine until you learn how things work, progressively teaching you and giving more options. You don't want to throw someone into some complex soup of stats, especially when raising them poorly from the start will result in their character being weaker in the long run. Too often do I follow a "guide" for a game that I am new to since I don't want to be punished because I was a confused nooblet. Characters should be able to hack together their own gameplay styles. I don't mean give them some options to choose from and let them choose a path, but if I want to be a fighter that punches people in the face instead of stabbing them, I should be able to without being insanely weak. There should be no one single "obviously the best" way of creating my character.

I think one way to approach this is to think outside of the box when it comes to fighting. Who says a fighter has to rush head-on melee into battle? That a mage has to be weak and cast strong spells from afar? What if I want my mage to suicidally sneak up on an enemy then just blast them with all my mana for an unholy amount of damage, then sit there and pray no one else comes by to pick off my weak wittle body? Who says I even want to fight? Maybe I want to run around town, pushing little kids over and picking locks on doors. That'll show that town for denying my loan! Bwahahaha!

Quote:

Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by Argus2 Well there's a difference - spending on a skill group should spread the investment over groups in the skill more efficiently than individually investing in those skills to the same degree. That provides some counter-balance to skill optimization. I considered that, but I'm not sure it's the way to go. The counter balance already exists in the fact that you don't need to know exactly what you want (aiming speed, aiming accuracy, recoil suppression, etc), and can just invest in a general concept (ranged offense).

Isn't that just then a UI feature which saves me time by increasing all skills in a category evenly, that could have been achieved by increasing each skill in the category individually to the same extent? The issue is that it is highly probable that your game mechanics (and game scenarios) will ultimately favour some skills over others. The players that maximise investment in the favoured skills and minimise investment in the unfavoured skills will find the game too easy. Or if it is still difficult for them, then the players who evenly distribute their skills will find it really hard. So what I'm saying is: It is almost guaranteed that evenly distributed skills will be sub-optimal. Ergo you should give the even distribution (balanced) options some kind of inherent advantage.

Quote:

An example would be someone who loves sniping with single-shot rifles. In which case, recoil suppression could be ignored to more quickly boost accuracy. But they would have to accept and play with the limitation that they can not use automatic weapons very well, and that is a negative cost for specialization.

Let's say that in your game, the best automatic weapon is a really crummy one, and the best single-shot rifle is really really good. It's not really a negative in this game to not be able to use automatic weapons very well, since they're ineffective anyway. By spreading skill points evenly, my resulting character would be weaker - it would have been better to spend those automatic weapon points elsewhere. This is an extreme example, but there are almost certainly going to be some skills with less utility and some with more, and in this case, even distribution is not ideal.

Quote:

Original post by Argus2 Isn't that just then a UI feature which saves me time by increasing all skills in a category evenly, that could have been achieved by increasing each skill in the category individually to the same extent?

That's essentially correct. But the grouping is chosen by the game and is initially closed, so players don't need to bother learning the exact implications of every stat. The headers would be relatively simplistic. They provide a straight-forward shot towards offense, defense, etc. I think it ends up being more than just an interface feature for some players.

You have to realize that rewarding generalization is also punishing specialization, and there just isn't a reason to do that. Especially when generalization is already rewarding by requiring less commitment and sacrifice. Some would call it safe and boring, others would call it quick and effortless.

Quote:

The issue is that it is highly probable that your game mechanics (and game scenarios) will ultimately favour some skills over others. The players that maximise investment in the favoured skills and minimise investment in the unfavoured skills will find the game too easy.

Players who make better decisions in games will always have better tools to work with. That's a universal constant. If a part of the game requires no meaningful choice, then it probably shouldn't even be a choice to have to make. If all skills are equally useful to all types of characters throughout the game, then it's not a meaningful choice.

Each single skill will be useful for one type of character in the game, but they won't all be equally useful for every type of character in the game. For example, there's a berserker trait (permanent character starting ability) that reduces ranged combat damage to that character to 50%, as well as reduce that character's own ranged offense to 50%. That effectively makes ranged combat skills worthless to them, while making speed and melee skills twice as useful.

Quote:

Or if it is still difficult for them, then the players who evenly distribute their skills will find it really hard. So what I'm saying is: It is almost guaranteed that evenly distributed skills will be sub-optimal.

In a linear game, I would agree. Fortunately, my players have the capacity to choose their own challenges in the game. So the game only becomes too easy or too hard if they want it to be. Becoming more powerful just gives them a larger range to choose from, while not becoming more powerful does nothing.

Quote:

Let's say that in your game, the best automatic weapon is a really crummy one, and the best single-shot rifle is really really good. It's not really a negative in this game to not be able to use automatic weapons very well, since they're ineffective anyway.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't feel comfortable laying the responsibility of my bad game design choices on players. The situation you describe doesn't fix anything about the problem - especially for players who don't use the skill headers or players who enjoy automatic weapons. It just happens to make the headers seem less wasteful.

Look at it this way. Players who don't like automatic weapons and don't plan to use automatic weapons are in the same boat. The points spent on recoil are still being wasted for them. That's why they can open them up and spend them on everything else without having a cost penalty.

Honestly, Kest, if there is no penalty for using them like that, individually, and there is no benefit to buy the skills in mass through a category, then why have the tabs at all? I think if it is so hard to figure out what a skill does that a player is better off with the tabs that maybe you should rethink your skill set. It just shouldnt be hard to figure out.

Quote:

Original post by JasRonq Honestly, Kest, if there is no penalty for using them like that, individually, and there is no benefit to buy the skills in mass through a category, then why have the tabs at all?

I said it was another way to go. You were actually the one who seemed attracted to it. The reason to implement it, from my perspective, is the same reason to implement any type of broad skill setup. To simplify character development, and remove the necessity to read through and understand each individual effect. I see no meaningful reason to apply a bonus to it.

Quote:

I think if it is so hard to figure out what a skill does that a player is better off with the tabs that maybe you should rethink your skill set. It just shouldnt be hard to figure out.

The skills are clearly explained in detail. There's nothing obscure about them. I, for one, wouldn't use the headers. If you believe no one will, then that's something to consider. That's why I'm here. Going on my opinion alone, optional skill group spending won't do anything to help or hurt the game. I just wouldn't use it.

Ah, but I like it because it makes an easy to understand method of creating a generalist possible and viable by giving a discount to buying those skills through the category tabs. Without the bonus there is no difference between clicking each skill individually and clicking on the tab, at which point you might as well learn the skills and figure out what you want because you will do better that way. Simple fact is that Argus2 is right, most games dont have completely even and balanced skills. You are also right that they shouldn't, it would be bland. But if they arent even then that means there are skills you dont want, so why buy skills 1-10 at base prise, when you dont want 8-10, when you can click on 1-7 yourself and then pick a few more? Because its easy for a noob to figure out the category? As I said, I think you need to rethink the skills if they are too hard to understand, otherwise you cant make a meaningful choice. Giving a bonus to encourage the generalists is something RPGs could really use.