Original post by JasRonq Simple fact is that Argus2 is right, most games dont have completely even and balanced skills.
How does employing a penalty for specialization help that problem? It was used as an example of how generalizing can cause more suffering than specialization. Yet, someone who specializes in the doomed automatics skill would suffer even more than someone who's just wasting a few points on the header because of it, and the penalty makes it worse for them.
Quote:
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
You wouldn't. The mass purchase would be for players who plan to eventually strengthen them all anyway. Such as someone who wants to master everything about firearms so that they can pick up any weapon type in the game and fight the good fight, rather than having to restrict themselves to certain guns while trying to avoid certain types of actions with them.
They already have a bonus in the fact that they can use any weapon, while a specialist already has a bonus in the fact that they can do more with one type of weapon. Those are natural penalties that already apply balance. The grouping of skills would make it slightly easier on those who generalize, while not causing anything negative to those who don't.
Quote:
Giving a bonus to encourage the generalists is something RPGs could really use.
I don't agree. Not being focused on specific strengths and weaknesses makes my own gaming experiences less interesting. Extreme generalization is somewhere on the path to nullifying all choices involved with character development.
Original post by JasRonq So is extreme specialization.
How is extreme specialization on a path of voiding choices? Any type of specialization would only happen because of commitment to those choices, rather than taking a little bit of everything to play it safe.
A character who chooses specialization is purposely inheriting a weakness in order to obtain more power. That weakness is already enough of a penalty to make generalization attractive.
Extreme generalization means not making a choice as to what to take. Extreme specialization means making only one choice, what to specialize in. The middle ground is the rich area where there are many choices because the player is willing to adapt and change their character and make meaningful choices later in the game rather than sticking to their initial choice.
I.E. if the player chose a sniping specialty and later was offered a choice between a solid secondary skill, and something that helps sniping, its no longer a meaningful choice for them, they take that which helps sniping above all else. A player more open to new choices than an extreme specialist would look at the choice honestly and determine if their main skill, sniping, is lacking, and if another skill might help them as well.
You've got a good point there. That was a problem in Fallout Tactics. It seemed like each character only needed to worry about a single skill. Sometimes, there may be a secondary skill, like outdoorsman or first aid, but they were optional, and no where near as essential as whatever offensive skill the character was focused on. My own character was focused on energy weapons, and I had allies to cover everything else. After reaching a skill of 200% in energy weapons, I stopped noticing any improvement, so leveling lost all meaning (except the perk every 3 levels, which stayed interesting).
Fallout Tactics was purely about combat. It could have had several defensive, manuevering, and tactical skills, rather than gambling, science, and repair, which didn't do much of anything for it.
For example, a skill could have been implemented to speed up aiming, reducing the time unit cost of shooting. It would have been a balancing dilemma to worry about the accuracy of shooting and the speed of shooting at the same time, since both are essential. Some characters may opt to focus on speed, and use run-and-gun tactics to get in close, while others could focus on accuracy, and snipe them from a distance. Despite the specialization, firing speed remains very valuable to a long range sniper, and accuracy remains vital to a run and gunner.
Just one choice at that magnitude makes things interesting, but more would do better.
May be drifting off topic now but I was just thinking about how to force the player out of the specialization situation. For instance, what if you forced the sniper into small rooms every so often in the game? They might see a point to more armour and a shotgun then. But putting a shotgun wielder in a field and they may start thinking about the rifles. The level design can have a huge impact on how the players choose their skills. Same with the design of the enemies.
