I wrote a text-based RPG that I will use to write my MMORPG when I''m older, which will dominate and rule the entire gaming industry...

Anyway, the way I handled it was this:

Lets say it was 1000xp to get to first level (all char''s start at 0). You don''t start as a class, you start as a person. As you traveled throughout my land, I made sure that you had every possible option available. I.E., you could attack the golbins with a stick, or wait until you''ve studied up a bit on war tactics.

Skills ended up bein'' stuff like

swordfighting
parrying
diplomacy
pick-pocket

And well you had the opportunity to try out any skill you want (just like in real life). Well, come time of that leveling up, the computer would access a record of what you did and give you points. EXAMPLE!

If, at 0th level, I tried pickin'' a few pockets, got in a fist-fight with Dave Astle, then tried to talk him down before he killed me , I would say that during my 0th level, 30% of my skill was picking pockets, 45% was of fist-fighting, and 25% was of diplomacy. Then, when I get the total number of skill points to spend on my skills (making them higher), I would be able to use 45% of my new skill points towards fist-fighting, 25% towards diplomacy, and 30% towards thievery.


It''s not complicated, I''m just not wording it right. =)

But basically, the more you used a skill, the more you could raise it. If I always attacked people with a stick, I would pretty good at whappin'' the holy hell out of a goblin, but would do a piss-poor job at trying to cast a spell..

Now, the magic system still needs to be fixed , but I think the general Idea of what we have all been trying to say is really good.

Axes and bows,
~Dwarf




I wish I was a moderator. =) (Dave Astle is my hero!)

Lohrno:
Is this classic or NG we are talkign about here?
Cuz if it was classic Id want to be Chekov, if it''s NG Id want to be Number 1! Cuz he was with Troi and all.

But IMHO, if you did something like this, there should be a split in the Federation. Ya know, like maybe the Kalamungos are a radical sect that say the Federation should use it''s stregnth for domination. So eventually it winds up being somewhat of an even split, and half the fleet goes with the Kalamungos and half stays with the UFP.

That way, you can have these ships fight each other without having to do such radically different setups as Klingon and Fed. You could have Feds fighting Feds. It all depends on how the enemy ships would be controlled. But it would be AWESOME to go up against another ship all manned by another crew and yours is manned by a crew and then face off. But there are soem more problems, like getting everyone together at once, and keeping people on one ship, all the old timing issues.

Dwarf:
So you have % of usage and then allocate different percentages of points when the caracter levels, yes?

Dwarf: That''s an interesting way of doing it...That''s kinda like the PnP games where the DM will award people for doing strange and interesting stuff. (Although here it''s more like common stuff other than killing things.) The only problem I see is why should one be given extra HP, and stats because they baked all day.

DrMol: I''ll say NG because they had cooler gadgets! =D

-=Lohrno

If you''re going to limit where the skill points are going to be spent, why not just raise the appropriate skills as you use them? This is already done by many games.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

While I think this is a good idea, most people don''t mind killing a rat and suddenly learning firestorm level 10 spell. Not saying your wrong but I often wonder why people dwell on questions that the majority seem to ignore.

Note: Please don''t think I''m flaming this topic or anything, ''cause it is a really good thought and I hope to integrate it into one of my rpgs if I ever finish learning C++...

Midnight Gaming - www.midnightgaming.com

quote: Original post by PSWind
While I think this is a good idea, most people don''t mind killing a rat and suddenly learning firestorm level 10 spell. Not saying your wrong but I often wonder why people dwell on questions that the majority seem to ignore.

Note: Please don''t think I''m flaming this topic or anything, ''cause it is a really good thought and I hope to integrate it into one of my rpgs if I ever finish learning C++...

Midnight Gaming - www.midnightgaming.com

No problem! =D I think it''s always good to do a reality check on thigs! =D (And I think you might have a point...if you''re really someone who cares about detail, maybe do like that, but most people don''t care =( ) Then after having said that there are so many of us here who think that it matters. Here''s the better question though: Would most people play anyway with the skill system, or would they get sick of it? I mean if you took the time to correct the issues, and make everything skill based instead of level based, would people flame you? Or would it be like satifying everyone?

-=Lohrno

I have to agree that I think spreading out the experience and skills to the tasks you were mostly doing is very important. I had a similar kind of system in mind but you wouldn''t recieve general experience and then dish out the skills the way you were playing, but each skill has its own experience value and levels itself completely arbitrary of other skills (unless there is a combined skill, that may occur somewhere in someones experience ).

Basically, the player goes around raising the experience of the current task they are doing, and then when they are ready to level they can go train under a master and gain that skill or increase the skills level.

I do like the task sharing idea tho Dwarf (man, someone is competing with my nickname :p)

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - The future of RPGs GPA Thanks to all the goblins in the GDCorner niche

quote: So you have % of usage and then allocate different percentages of points when the caracter levels, yes?

Why, oh why are you still stuck on levels? I thought you were the one who started this thread with getting away from levels, or did you just want to get closer to the EQ method?

Not saying that I like the UO method (ooh, I hit 100, so I will NEVER learn anything else or get any better with that skill... ya, right) either. I prefer a system that puts the skill cap so rediculously high that you really can''t attain it. Example: You put the skill cap at 65530 (2 bytes minus 5 for flat settings), then allow relatively quick skill advancement. Even with allowing a skill advance per minute, it would take an hour to get 60 skill points and over 1000 hours to cap the skill. Sure, in an MMORPG that might be easily possible, since most people seem to live in the damn things. So you slow down the advancement to 1 point every 5 minutes on average and you end up with a little over 5000 hours average to cap the skill, or 16 hours a day for 340 days. If someone wants to play a game every day for 16 hours a day for around a year, they can cap their skill. Give them that reward for having absolutely no life.

Let your players develop as far as they want to. If that player wants to sit there and do nothing buy swing his right arm over and over for the next year, he should be getting better and better.

But again, why the level advancement? What does it serve, except as a way to keep advancement from occuring until a magical amount of exp has been attained? If you want to give them more hp, then simply make hp be a function of different skills, then it will go up as those skills go up.

Ok, I'm directing this towards solinear.

First, the idea of a nearly unreachable skill cap scares me. Now, the game's going to be balanced for a max that very few people can reach. Either everyone gets the snot beat out of them by ridiculously strong monsters, or the one guy who does set his computer to play without him while he's at work will be an unstoppable juggernaught against the monsters set for 'normal' people.

As far as levels go, levels are a nice way to gague standards, even for different things (diplomats vs wizards vs warriors) and have been around a while. Not saying that they're the best things ever, or that they suck, but simply that they've got their place. Especially Dwarf w/ Axe's example. I'd guess that levels represent the time spent doing stuff. So, while you're watching TV, no exp gain. But if you're doing something (walking, running, programming, cooking) you're gaining exp.

And finally, your starting comment irques me. I'm probablly just being a little overly sensative, but I find it very frusterating when someone who is sticking to fairly standard paradigm (one I don't particularly like) has the nerve to say something disparaging about someone else sticking to standards.

Edit: Quote madness didn't work out. Trying something simpler.

Edited by - ThoughtBubble on March 11, 2002 3:14:10 PM

quote: First, the idea of a nearly unreachable skill cap scares me. Now, the game''s going to be balanced for a max that very few people can reach. Either everyone gets the snot beat out of them by ridiculously strong monsters, or the one guy who does set his computer to play without him while he''s at work will be an unstoppable juggernaught against the monsters set for ''normal'' people.

Well, you don''t set the monsters to those people who go after 65000 skill ratings, you set the monsters for people with skill ratings between 1 and 65000. Just as in any game, there are places that you "just don''t go" when you''re low level, this would be the same. If he''s running around fighting critters on ''automatic'' then he will commonly either die (due to the lack of attention), or fight critters that are way too easy for him and gain no skill.

quote: As far as levels go, levels are a nice way to gague standards, even for different things (diplomats vs wizards vs warriors) and have been around a while. Not saying that they''re the best things ever, or that they suck, but simply that they''ve got their place. Especially Dwarf w/ Axe''s example. I''d guess that levels represent the time spent doing stuff. So, while you''re watching TV, no exp gain. But if you''re doing something (walking, running, programming, cooking) you''re gaining exp.

I guess I''m not really against levels in all their trappings. I''m just against using levels as they are implemented now. If you use them as a guage of power and not as an actual way to give the players power, it''s great. The whole D&D thing with every level adding hit points, spells, hit probability, the whole shebang all at once, regardless of what the character is doing. If the cleric is just healing and not engaging in combat, then maybe he shouldn''t be getting any better at either taking or dealing out damage. Level also shouldn''t be a way to gate the player''s abilities either (like in EQ, how you can only hit (level+1)5 skill in certain skills). Simply use the level as a way to give everyone a guage to know where they are, so to speak. I''m actually planning on doing this in the game that I''m working on, but that''s all it will do is guage current skill levels so people will know who might be appropriate to group with, though everyone will gain skill when grouped together, regardless of ''level''.

quote: And finally, your starting comment irques me. I''m probablly just being a little overly sensative, but I find it very frusterating when someone who is sticking to fairly standard paradigm (one I don''t particularly like) has the nerve to say something disparaging about someone else sticking to standards.

Well, he started the thread with the statement:

quote: I walk around all day a nd kill stuff, and then I level up and my lockpicking inceases even though I was out in the woods all day.

I am sorry, but it just doesnt make any sense to me that you could go around killing stuff, and then when you level up, your knowledge increases, or your intelligence, or you lockpicking skill, or your barding skill....
The only way to learn thisgs is through practicing them...

If anyone would understand my frustrations with the traditional leveling system and try to avoid the "kill to get better" philosophy. His comments about using skills in the first post were dead on. You get better by using them, not by killing critters.

Like I said, it''s not the fact that people want to use level, it''s the way that it''s being used. Either as a way to control character power or as a way to limit abilities. Well, that and the whole ''exp for commiting murder'' thing. The paladin who is a murderer becomes great and powerful while the paladin who refuses to destroy one of the wonderful creations (no matter how misguided they might be) stays as weak as the newest novice, no matter the fact that he has fought ten times as much as the mass-murderer. Give skill for using the skills, not only for commiting murder.

Just think of the show Kung Fu, where the lead character (Kain?) faught and was a great warrior. Did he kill anyone? Not that I remember. I also don''t think that he killed anyone before the show started, so how did he get so darned good without getting all that ''murder exp''?

Sorry about the sarcasm. Just a little frustrating that murder is the only way that exp is gained in most RPGs. I shouldn''t only get better after I murder the prerequisite number of critters or only get better to a point, then get better some more after I kill a bunch more. Keep getting better based upon the skill level of your opponents. If you fight someone vastly better than you, you''ll get better faster, but take your chances with death (and the resultant loss of memory).

BTW: Yes, I know I''m a little closed-minded. I''ve been working on this system (and the resultant database) for the past year (3 months). Most people I talk to think I''m on to something good, some like levels, so I''m keeping the skill system and using the skills to create a level, based upon the highest skill level.