crouilla wrote:

Though your single stat would work great for melee weapons, what about ranged weapons? Their use in combat is different than melee weapons, because you could conceivably become an expert with a bow without ever shooting at an enemy (if they go hunting, they''ve got unpredictable moving targets).

The same is true for melee weapons. Don''t you think if you practiced "from birth" in fencing until you were twenty years old that you''d be a "master" fencer, even though you''ve never been in a life or death situation?

And concerning the use of missile weapons in combat, I disagree. Their use is different only so far as they are missile weapons and melee weapons aren''t. My "Combat" stat, or modifier is something that represents the fact that you are not at all used to highly stressful life or death situations. Granted, you might not be under as much stress if you''re 100 feet away from the melee troops but you''re still under MUCH more stress than at the range shooting round immobile targets. Perhaps the degree of closeness of the enemy could play into the modifier.

crouilla wrote:

Though combat would help hone their skills, they could certainly achieve a higher level of expertise with a bow without combat than a melee skill without real combat.

Again, I disagree. Certainly the rate of gain of expertise will vary greatly among different skills, but if you practiced long enough you can become an "expert" in anything.

crouilla wrote:

People with ranged weapons tend to be in less immediate danger, so they tend to be able to apply their training a bit better and suffer from less combat shock.

And this is why my advancement scheme would allow skills to up faster when practicing than when fighting. For instance, the amount of gain per swing in a practice environment would be greater than the amount of gain per swing in a combat environment. That''s the whole reason for practice, so you can train yourself to an instinctive, reflexive level of ability, where you do without thinking. And yet without combat experience you are still "green". Why? Because for all your instinctive ability you are still not use to all the extra stimuli from a real life do or die combat situation, and that is what my "Combat Settings Modifier" is for: the more you''re in combat the more mileage you get from existing skills used during. It''s like a miles per gallon rating for your skills. You start out with pathetic mileage, having never seen combat, and advance to where you''re getting tons of miles per gallon. Granted if you''ve got no raw skill to begin with it doesn''t matter how much combat you''ve seen, you''re still going to suck, but I hope you get my point.

crouilla wrote:

... magic and "craft" skills .... ... skills such as lock-picking ... their use in "real life" would be much different than in training (in training, there''s no chance of being caught).

Yes. There obviously needs to be more "settings" than Practice and Combat, but I just haven''t thought through any more than these two. Perhaps a redefinition would be in order. I could use a "Stressful Setting" modifier and a "Relaxed Setting" modifier. Maybe even add Stressfull for all non-combat skills like lock-picking and sneaking and keep the Combat Setting for the skills used in combat (sword, bow, offensive magic, etc.)

crouilla wrote:

... but there are many cases where a single stat like this just won''t work.

Right. Again, there is an obvious need for an elaboration on the number and type of Setting modifiers. Actually this was something I was hoping someone else could help provide some additional examples on.

Thanks for the comments!

Care,
Chris

While your theory has some merit, I think that a person''s abilities would be more affected by their personality than their experience. ie. You could take Joe Street Wise from New York City, he''s tough and never lost a fight, but he was drafted to fight in WWII, gets over to Europe in his first real battle, and shits his pants and drops to the ground in the fetal position. Meanwhile, Joe Potato Farmer from Idaho, never saw a fight in his life is also drafted and is beside Joe Street when he faces the same battle, not only does not freeze, gets a medal of valor for saving his unit from a machine gun nest.

Even if the skills are not gained from battle experience, as long as the practice is serious, the skills gained go a long way to helping a person in real situations. So Mr Experience, with 20 years of battle experience under his belt, will definitly do better than Mr Practise, with 20 years of practise under his belt, in a combat situation, Mr Practise won''t be far behind, as long as his personality keeps him from freezing under battle shock.

Also, tecniques can be learned and perfected in practise that cannot be learned on the battlefield and vice versa. So while there may be a difference, I think it to be minor.

What you might think of doing is take a weighted value, according to the situation. Like this:

Swordfighting = 5
Practise = -0.0
Combat = -0.25

Then in the situation, you just multiply the value by the modifier and subtract that from the main value. Also the values never drop, unless the both become 0 and the next advancement drops one. With a max value of say -0.25 or -0.50.

Heres an example:

   ______________________Level______________________  |   1|   2|   3|   4|   5|   6|   7|   8|   9|  10|SF|   1|   2|   3|   4|   5|   6|   7|   8|   9|  10|Pr| -0 | -0 | -0 |-0  |-0  |-0  |-.05|-.10|-.15|-.20|Co|-.05|-.10|-.15|-.10|-.05|-0  |-0  |-0  |-0  |-0  |So the progression is:Level  Area 1     Practice 2     Practice 3     Practice 4     Combat 5     Combat 6     Combat 7     Combat 8     Combat 9     Combat 10    Combat

---
Make it work.
Make it fast.

"Commmmpuuuuterrrr.." --Scotty Star Trek IV:The Voyage Home

quote: You''ve got it backwards. Sword and Mace would be two separate and distinct skills, used when your trooper is equipped with a sword or mace respectively. The "Training" or "Combat" would be two separate attributes the unit has which would be universally applied to ANY skill used in that setting, be it Sword, Mace, Swimming, Picking Lock, etc.

Um... that won''t really work.

Table "char_attr" fields "char_name,str,int,train,combat,blah,blah"

Table "char_skill" fields "char_name,sword,mace,bow,swim"

OK, so let''s say that I have a train attribute of 8 and a combat attribute of 6. I have a sword skill of 9 and a mace skill of 3.

How are you going to actually determine how much of my sword skill is combat and how much is training related? Obviously swimming and some others will be completely oblivious to combat usage and irrelevant for the mostpart to this discussion.

If you aren''t planning on having there actually be a difference between skill points gained through training and combat (which are completely different), then why are you even bothering with training attribute? Simply have actual combat attribute (to represent the person''s hardiness maybe) and the sword skill. Otherwise, if you have 2 people, both with sword skill of 9 (all trained), mace skill of 9 (all combat), training attrib of 9 and combat attrib of 9, where is the difference between using a sword in combat (which he has no real combat experience) and a mace (which he would be extremely experienced in combat with)? None. Without having 2 fields for combat and training skill points, you won''t be able to tell the difference in any database, no matter how fancy it is.

Here''s the real problem with what you''re proposing though:

Player a realizes that H2H is very hard in combat, but sword is very easy. However, H2H is much better than sword when you get to high levels. So he goes out and uses his sword up to level 10 in combat, also getting his combat up to 10 in the process, then trains his H2H skill up to 10. Result: He has a more effective character because of what is considered an exploit in any other game (or in other words, the engine loaned itself to cheating easily).

solinear wrote:

How are you going to actually determine how much of my sword skill is combat and how much is training related? Obviously swimming and some others will be completely oblivious to combat usage and irrelevant for the mostpart to this discussion.

That distinction for practical purposes is not important. More below. As far as swimming and picking locks and such, yes, but there could be occasions when you are performing under a stressful situation. Imagine a healer performing first aid on the battlefield. Or a thief picking a lock with guards around the corner. Etc., etc.

solinear wrote:

If you aren''t planning on having there actually be a difference between skill points gained through training and combat (which are completely different), then why are you even bothering with training attribute?

Now this is a good question, since there seems little if any use for it. However, as I’ve tried to illustrate in my other posts on this thread there are times when it becomes relevant if you’ve been trained in a certain environment.

Perhaps if I explain everything from that point of view it may become more clear what exactly it is that I’m trying to accomplish with my “settings”. I guess you could actually call them Environmental Modifiers. For example, whether you’re trained in an “academic” environment or a “combat” environment. If I were someone who had obtained all of my training in the sword from combat, then if I attempted to train with someone using swords in an academic environment my ability would be decreased. Our skill levels being equal, they would win. I’m simply not acquainted with “pulling my blows”, and all the other little nuances of sparring. Note that if I actually attacked this same person to kill them then my skill would be modified by my combat experience and their skill would then become modified by their combat experience, and I would win. Conversely, if I received all of my training in a purely academic environment then when I entered combat for the first time my ability would be decreased. At least until I had gained sufficient experience in operating in that environment. And it doesn’t matter where that experience comes from, just that I actually DO stuff in that environment. It doesn’t matter if I’m swinging a sword at an orc who is trying to kill me, or knitting a quilt while arrows fly by my head and combat rages around me. I’m still becoming desensitized to the environment of combat. Heck, if I just STAND there doing nothing my combat experience should actually increase a little.

solinear wrote:

Simply have actual combat attribute (to represent the person''s hardiness maybe) and the sword skill. Otherwise, if you have 2 people, both with sword skill of 9 (all trained), mace skill of 9 (all combat), training attrib of 9 and combat attrib of 9, where is the difference between using a sword in combat (which he has no real combat experience) and a mace (which he would be extremely experienced in combat with)? None. Without having 2 fields for combat and training skill points, you won''t be able to tell the difference in any database, no matter how fancy it is.

There’s a misconception here. The people you described have both spent 9 months training in the gym with swords, and 9 months in the field fighting wars with their maces. Do you honestly believe that when they put down their mace and pick up their sword that they suddenly forget those 9 grueling months in the field, with blood and guts and war all around them? No. Because of their 9 months of EXPERIENCE, they are no longer “green” soldiers, and it has nothing to do with their training. It has to do with experience. You can be taught a skill, but you can only experience an environment. This is why boot camp ends up with troopers crawling through mud with live fire being poured over their heads. So they can get a little bit of combat experience in a pseudo-safe environment (they are after all live rounds).

solinear wrote:

Player a realizes that H2H is very hard in combat, but sword is very easy. However, H2H is much better than sword when you get to high levels. So he goes out and uses his sword up to level 10 in combat, also getting his combat up to 10 in the process, then trains his H2H skill up to 10. Result: He has a more effective character because of what is considered an exploit in any other game (or in other words, the engine loaned itself to cheating easily).

An exploit? Cheating? What you’ve described is real life. If I enter the military and spend 10 years as an infantryman, and actually fight real people in real combat situations and live through it, then you could say I’m a veteran. Say I then take martial arts classes for another 10 years. Did I suddenly lose my 10 years of combat experience? If I’m dropped in a combat situation without my weapon(s), am I not still more effective than a 10 year martial artist who has never seen combat?

Thanks again for the dialogue. Keep it coming! I really appreciate it.

Care,
Chris Rasmus

Florida, USA
RTS Engine in Development
http://www.knology.net/~heaven
Jesus is LORD!

"An exploit? Cheating? What you’ve described is real life. If I enter the military and spend 10 years as an infantryman, and actually fight real people in real combat situations and live through it, then you could say I’m a veteran. Say I then take martial arts classes for another 10 years. Did I suddenly lose my 10 years of combat experience? If I’m dropped in a combat situation without my weapon(s), am I not still more effective than a 10 year martial artist who has never seen combat?"

Yes. But not as effective as a martial artist will be with comat expierence in martial arts. Sure, you might not pull your blows back, but you might simply not know how much force it takes to break bones.

While I get what yo''re talking about. And I understand the system you''re going after (and frankly, might enjoy it more than some exisiting ones) the whole thing just seems like a little bit of an artificial divider to me.

If you want a better example, compare an archer to a swordsman. Or, a pilot to a swordsman. The situations can become very seperate. Just keep an eye out for them.

The problem I think everyone here sees with the system is that you''re trying to model a very complicated concept with a simple single statistic. You''re leaving out many very important factors:

1) Courage. Would a person be more likely to be afraid of him and 10 buddies taking on 2 soldiers, or an Omaha-beach type scenario? I don''t care how much military experience they had... in the latter, I''m sure even the most experienced soldier would be just as afraid as the naive rookie (maybe moreso, since they know more what could happen). If a man has been in 50 battles, but in every one simply hung back while everyone else did the work until the enemy was weak enough for him to sneak in and snag the kill, would his combat rating increase?

2) Type of training. Sure -- the training stat would work if all training were equivalent. But a person could be just as skilled with a gun if they were out shooting birds in a field as they could running drills in the Army. Since both are considered "training", does that make the duck hunter as combat-ready as the soldier with no combat experience (except for the training he has in combat simulation)?

3) Stat ambiguity. You''ve got a problem here in that the player would have no clue what this "combat" stat was, or why his fighter with a level 60 sword skill was fighting worse than a magician with a level 30 skill just because the magician had been in alot of battles and had just recently started to learn the sword. So, either you could expose the stat entirely, making the program seem a little too much like math, or hide it entirely and have the above ambiguity problem. Either way obviously treads on the game''s fun factor.

I''ve got to run, but these are simply some of the many issues with the proposed system. I like the idea, but the execution may be a little too mathematical. You''d be better off simply giving more skill experience for combat situations. Whereas a hit in training could give 5 skill points, a hit in combat could give 20 -- meaning that it is in the player''s best interest to go out and fight rather than sit around training all day. Also, if you want, you could have a "Combat Experience" advantage, where every level they have adds to weapon skills when the skills are used in combat. This advantage could be user-settable at the creation of the character (to start some characters with combat experience, such as those with military backgrounds), and then for everyone, it could increase on its own over time.

-Chris

quote: Original post by ThoughtBubble
Yes. But not as effective as a martial artist will be with comat expierence in martial arts. Sure, you might not pull your blows back, but you might simply not know how much force it takes to break bones.

I disagree to an extent. Take two perfectly equal newbies. One practices in an academic environment for 1 year with the sword. Another goes off to war and after a certain amount of time has a skill level in sword equal to the practiced newbie. Now let me clarify something. I believe it will take the combat newbie longer to get to the same skill level than the practicing newbie. Swing for swing, chop for chop, thrust for thrust, there is more learning in an academic environment than in a combat environment. But let''s put aside for the moment the fact that it takes combat newbie an arbitrary 2 yrs to get to the same level of raw skill as practice newbie got to in only 1 year.

So we''ve got two newbies with the exact same skill level in sword. One has 1 year of experience practicing or performing in an academic/learning environment, while another has 2 years of experience operating in a combat environment. It''s not important that combat newbie has 2 years of combat experience so much as that he has combat experience, period, while practice newbie has none.

So you''re right, combat newbie will trounce practice newbie, even though their skills are equal. Both know equally well how to harm the other, but combat newbie has had more experience doing it.

Now take my example of the soldier with 10 years of combat experience who then trains for 10 years in martial arts. If you had another soldier who performed martial arts during combat for a sufficient period of time such that his skill level was exactly equal to the first soldier, then by necessity his combat experience would be greater. I.e., it takes more combat than practice to get to the same level of skill. So the second soldier might need 15 years of combat to get the same degree of skill that the first got in only 10 years of training. So yeah, right again, soldier #2 trounces soldier #1. But not because he had "combat" martial arts!

I honestly don''t believe that in real life, if you took two perfectly equal people and gave one a year of martial arts in the gym and had the other fight for a year in lethal unarmed combat, that their skill levels would end up being the same. Consider that the former is receiving formal instruction in the ways of the fist, while the latter is simply adapting and surviving, implementing whatever works. It''s almost like the difference between a kid raised in the slums, participating in gang wars and street fights versus a kid raised in the dojo, practicing every day with a Teacher and fellow students in the art of unarmed combat. Street kid has much more practical combat experience, but limited pure knowledge of fighting (i.e., skill). Dojo kid has no combat experience, but a high degree of knowledge and practice.

It is my opinion that practicing yields more skill per unit time than experience. But experience modifies the effect of usable skill! It''s a hand in hand relationship. I smell a chart....

quote:
... the whole thing just seems like a little bit of an artificial divider to me.

Artificial divider?

quote:
If you want a better example, compare an archer to a swordsman. Or, a pilot to a swordsman. The situations can become very seperate. Just keep an eye out for them.

Please elaborate. I''m confused as to what you''re getting at.

quote: Original post by crouilla
The problem I think everyone here sees with the system is that you''re trying to model a very complicated concept with a simple single statistic.

Exactly! Yes there''s a problem, but I''m trying to generalize it and simplify it enough so it provides a framework both unique and rewarding, fun to play and yet a bit more realistic than contemporary models.

quote:
You''re leaving out many very important factors:

1) Courage.

I do plan on modeling some kind of morale factor, and I suppose some type of attribute similar to courage, or perhaps discipline could be included in the modeling. But again, I''m trying to do all this while keeping it as simple as possible. There can always be a second version, Lord willing.

quote:
.... If a man has been in 50 battles, but in every one simply hung back while everyone else did the work until the enemy was weak enough for him to sneak in and snag the kill, would his combat rating increase?

In my mind his combat rating would increase, yes, but not as much as it would if he was on the front lines. I believe I already mentioned the idea that proximity to enemy forces would be a factor. This would be why an archer would get less combat experience than a foot soldier per unit time. And the guy who hung back and didn''t even fight until the end, well, his skill levels are going to be pretty much stagnant. I mean, if he swoops in for the kill at the end and only end up doing a few chops worth of combat his skill won''t advance nearly as fast as one who is on the front lines chopping the entire time. Of course he might live longer. Heh.

quote:
2) Type of training. Sure -- the training stat would work if all training were equivalent. But a person could be just as skilled with a gun if they were out shooting birds in a field as they could running drills in the Army. Since both are considered "training", does that make the duck hunter as combat-ready as the soldier with no combat experience (except for the training he has in combat simulation)?

This has been something I''ve been trying to say for a while! You''re absolutely right - a person can be just as skilled with a gun shooting birds and targets as one who runs drills in the Army. If you put both on the range, they would perform equally. However, since running drills in the Army DOES involve to a limited degree some, as you said, combat simulation, the recruit would perform slightly better than the bird shooter on the front lines. Note here that both shooters have gained their skill through academic style training. It''s just that the Army happens to instill a little combat experience in their troops through the use of live fire drills and other "live action" training.

quote:
3) Stat ambiguity. You''ve got a problem here in that the player would have no clue what this "combat" stat was, or why his fighter with a level 60 sword skill was fighting worse than a magician with a level 30 skill just because the magician had been in alot of battles and had just recently started to learn the sword.

But the fighter would quickly catch up to and surpass the magician. Meanwhile, the fighter would realize that he is simply "green" and the mage a "veteran", and that until he gets some experience under his belt the veteran will of course outperform him. Where''s that chart?!

quote:
Whereas a hit in training could give 5 skill points, a hit in combat could give 20 -- meaning that it is in the player''s best interest to go out and fight rather than sit around training all day.

This is exactly what I don''t want to do! Realistically, the raw skill advantage comes from pure training. It is to your advantage to train up before going out to combat, especially since I plan on modeling realistic combat, where even a single blow from a dagger can take out a veteran figher in plate armor.

quote:
This advantage could be user-settable at the creation of the character (to start some characters with combat experience, such as those with military backgrounds), and then for everyone, it could increase on its own over time.

This is a very good idea, and something I had thought briefly about. Something akin to background points, which could be spent on various things to enhance and round off your character in an RPG. You could use the points for extra starting equipment or money, or like you said, for military service. You could use the background pts to enhance some stats. Etc., etc. In an RTS game though this wouldn''t be practical, although training could be automated to a large extent.

Thanks again for the comments.

Oh yeah, a chart!

Assuming our environment modifier is defined thusly:

mod=min(20%+environment modifier,100%)

Also, assuming a learning curve like so:

Academic Combat
Skill Gain/Unit Time Gain/Unit Time
0-256 +16 +4
257-320 +8 +2
321-336 +4 +1
337-340 +2 +0.5
341+ +1 +0.25

Then for the Academic who only practices:

Academic Academic Academic Resultant Combat Resultant
Time Skill Env Mod Skill Mod Skill in Combat
1 mo 16 +5% 30% 5 20% 3
2 mo 32 +10% 35% 11 20% 6
3 mo 48 +15% 40% 19 20% 10
6 mo 96 +30% 55% 53 20% 19
9 mo 144 +45% 70% 101 20% 29
1 yr 192 +60% 85% 163 20% 38
1 yr 4 mo 256 +80% 100% 256 20% 51
2 yrs 320 +100% 100% 320 20% 64
2 yrs 4 mo 336 +100% 100% 336 20% 67
2 yrs 6 mo 340 +100% 100% 340 20% 68
3 yrs 346 +100% 100% 346 20% 69
5 yrs 370 +100% 100% 370 20% 74
10 yrs 430 +100% 100% 430 20% 86
20 yrs 550 +100% 100% 550 20% 110
30 yrs 670 +100% 100% 670 20% 134
50 yrs 910 +100% 100% 910 20% 182

And for the Combative trainee:

Combat Combat Combat Resultant Academic Resultant
Time Skill Env Mod Skill Mod Skill when Practicing
1 mo 4 +5% 30% 1 20% 1
2 mo 8 +10% 35% 3 20% 2
3 mo 12 +15% 40% 5 20% 2
6 mo 24 +30% 55% 13 20% 5
9 mo 36 +45% 70% 25 20% 7
1 yr 48 +60% 85% 41 20% 10
1 yr 4 mo 64 +80% 100% 64 20% 13
2 yrs 96 +100% 100% 96 20% 19
2 yrs 4 mo 112 +100% 100% 112 20% 22
2 yrs 6 mo 120 +100% 100% 120 20% 24
3 yrs 144 +100% 100% 144 20% 29
5 yrs 240 +100% 100% 240 20% 48
6 yrs 8 mo 320 +100% 100% 320 20% 64

But what about someone who trains and then goes into combat?

Academic Academic Academic Resultant Combat Resultant
Time Skill Env Mod Skill Mod Skill in Combat
1 mo 16 +5% 30% 5 20% 3
2 mo 32 +10% 35% 11 20% 6
3 mo 48 +15% 40% 19 20% 10
6 mo 96 +30% 55% 53 20% 19
9 mo 144 +45% 70% 101 20% 29
1 yr 192 +60% 85% 163 20% 38
1 yr 4 mo 256 +80% 100% 256 20% 51

Now let''s quit fooling around and go to war:

1 mo 260 +100% 100% 260 25% 78
2 mo 264 +100% 100% 264 30% 106
4 mo 268 +100% 100% 268 40% 134
8 mo 272 +100% 100% 272 60% 272
1 yr 280 +100% 100% 277 80% 280
1 yr 4 mo 288 +100% 100% 288 100% 288
2 yrs 304 +100% 100% 279 100% 292
2 yrs 8 mo 320 +100% 100% 320 100% 320
3 yrs 8 mo 332 +100% 100% 332 100% 332

So we can immediately see that with just 1 year and 4 months of combat training we can maximize our skill level when in a combat environment. In other words, 16 months is all it takes to desensitize our troopers to operating at 100% efficiently in combat.

Comparing, we see that a 2 year trainee is equivalent to a 1 year and 4 month pure combat soldier, and that someone who first trains for 1 year and 4 months, then campaigns on the front for 8 additional months end up being better than a 50 year trainee and a 5 year pure combat soldier.

While the above figures are all arbitrary at this point, the charts at least show the general idea behind my reasoning. Namely that training produces skill the quickest, and that you need experience to be truly effective.

Comments?

Care,
Chris Rasmus


Florida, USA
RTS Engine in Development
http://www.knology.net/~heaven
Jesus is LORD!

The arguments that you''re making are pitiful to say the least. You''re basically saying that 10 skill != 10 skill.

There are too many holes in your arguments and I''d much rather see you change your db model to include the ''train'' variant for every skill than what you''re talking about.

I was trying to point out the loopholes, but instead you found a way to argue around it and say that 2 people who would very obviously have completely different levels of ability would have the same ability with the statement:

quote: Did I suddenly lose my 10 years of combat experience?

Obviously the answer is no, but you also didn''t gain 10 years worth of combat experience with h2h combat. Of course, now you''re talking about guns and hands. Are you trying to say that learning to kill someone from 300 meters is the same as being able to fight someone h2h? Keeping your head inside the foxhole is the same as dodging the punches, kicks and other h2h attacks that are coming at you? Not even close. Might as well compare driving a tank to flying a plane at that rate.

Honestly though, it sounds like you''ve already made up your mind about how you''re going to do it and are just looking to hear us say "Wow, what a good idea" when we honestly don''t seem to think that it is a good idea. We, as a whole from what I''ve read of these posts, think that it''s a bad idea.

Good luck with what you''re doing though. I''m not going to find a way to agree with you. Sure, combat as an attribute might be a good edea, but using it to represent the combat experience that you have with all your skills is just not a good idea in my opinion.

quote: In a previous post I had said:
Did I suddenly lose my 10 years of combat experience?

quote: To which solinear responded
Obviously the answer is no, but you also didn't gain 10 years worth of combat experience with h2h combat. Of course, now you're talking about guns and hands. Are you trying to say that learning to kill someone from 300 meters is the same as being able to fight someone h2h? Keeping your head inside the foxhole is the same as dodging the punches, kicks and other h2h attacks that are coming at you? Not even close. Might as well compare driving a tank to flying a plane at that rate.

No, of course skill in sniping wouldn’t be applicable to martial arts.

However, let me ask you a few questions. Maybe I need to go back to the drawing board and redefine a few things, for my sake. Say we take someone as a child and train them in “sword fighting” for 10 years, and then take another person of equal ability with no prior skill or knowledge of sword fighting and put him in life or death situations for 10 years where he must use his sword to defend himself. Let’s assume equal time as well, so if the trainee gets 8 hrs/day of practice the combatant gets 8 hrs/day of combat.

Now tell the two to kill each other, with their swords. Who will win?

The trainee knows far more about the theoretical application of the sword in a fight, and has probably been taught things like the most effective areas of the body to strike, how to fight against different types of weapons with his sword, and he has probably learned an awful lot of deadly combinations (e.g., katas). However he’s never had to fear for his life while practicing, and he’s always been in an academic environment.

The combatant however has far more practical knowledge. He has also probably learned the most effective areas of the body to strike through experience. He probably has picked up quite a bit of skill fighting against people armed with different weapons. He has also probably learned a few deadly moves, but no doubt he simply sticks to what kills the quickest and easiest. He’s always had to fear for his life while fighting, so he no longer thinks anything of it. It’s as natural an environment to him as a walk in the park.

So who would win? Probably the combatant. Sure, the trainee is “better” and knows more, but the nervousness and anxiety he would surely experience would allow the combatant to no doubt score a quick kill. That’s what he’s good at in any case, killing. Not fighting, but killing. He didn’t live 10 years fighting 8 hrs a day, he lived 10 years killing 8 hrs a day. 

That is why if you take the two back to the gym and gave them wooden swords, the trainee will probably best the combatant. After all, the combatant is now forced to fight within certain restrictions (i.e., no throat or eye strikes, no knee strikes, etc.), purely academic restrictions he is simply not at all used to. He is used to doing whatever it takes to down the enemy.

Do you agree with this example?

Now let’s take our combatant, and instead of a sword let’s say he fought with an assault rifle. He’s got 10 years of 8 hrs/day combat experience with the rifle. Say he now goes and gets 10 years of academic instruction in the martial arts. Pure training and practice, practice, practice.

His opponent will now also be a combatant, but one who has fought 8 hrs/day for 10 years using his bare hands (and feet and teeth and whatever other body part worked). So they square off, the combat veteran who killed people for 10 years with his bare hands and the combat veteran who killed people for 10 years with his rifle who has also been trained for 10 years by [presumedly] a Master in the martial arts. Who will win this time if they try to kill each other with unarmed combat?

Do you really think the raw, unfocused acquired ability of the one martial artist will prevail over the refined, focused methods of the other? Both are used to killing and being the target of someone trying to kill them, so neither would give a second thought to the fact that their life is on the line. One is experienced in “getting the job done” with his fists, and the other has been highly trained to get the job done with his fists.

In other words I think one is simply lucky enough to be alive after 10 years of killing people with his fists. It doesn’t mean he has more skill than the 10 year trainee who has never seen combat. Consider…

From our first example with sword fighting we concluded that the 10 year combatant with no training would probably kill the 10 year trainee with no combat, if they both squared off in mortal combat. However, what if the trainee had acquired a certain amount of combat training himself? How much combat training would it take the trainee before his 10 years of skill would enable him to overcome the untrained veteran combatant? One year? Two years? Five years? You certainly don’t think that it would take him 10 years of combat training before he could fight on a level footing with the 10 year veteran combatant, do you? That would mean his 10 years of focused training with the sword would mean nothing. I would think that in a relatively short amount of time he would have enough combat training to compensate.

If you went by my [admittedly arbitrary] charts and extrapolated the combatant down to 10 years, it would only take the trainee just about 12 months of combat to make it so the two had equal ability. Give the trainee another 4 or 5 months and he will be operating at 100% in a combat environment, and with the full benefit of his 10 years of training.

What it seems you are trying to tell me is that there are certain ways you handle the sword (or the fist) which are fundamentally different in combat compared to academic environments. Your contention is that someone who has 10 years of combat with a weapon is able to beat someone with just 10 years of training with that weapon. With this I agree. But you go on to claim that it doesn’t matter if the trainee also had 10 years of combat experience in a different weapon, he would still be inferior.

My claim is that training produces more raw skill. You learn more ways of utilizing the thing you’re being trained with than someone who simply goes out and starts using it. What makes a unit veteran as opposed to green? Seeing a good deal of combat. Same principle applies to other fields. A 4 year certified auto mechanic might not be as good initially as someone who’s been working on engines for the 4 years the former was being trained, but given some time (and less time than the initial 4 years it took the experienced mechanic to get to his level of skill) the certified mechanic is going to become better than the uncertified. Such that after a set amount of time the trained mechanic will always be better than the untrained, all other things being equal.

Don’t you think?

quote:
Honestly though, it sounds like you've already made up your mind about how you're going to do it and are just looking to hear us say "Wow, what a good idea" when we honestly don't seem to think that it is a good idea. We, as a whole from what I've read of these posts, think that it's a bad idea.

Ack. I apologize for coming across that way when it’s the furthest thing from the truth. I crave constructive criticism, otherwise I wouldn’t have posted.

quote:
Good luck with what you're doing though. I'm not going to find a way to agree with you. Sure, combat as an attribute might be a good edea, but using it to represent the combat experience that you have with all your skills is just not a good idea in my opinion.

And why not? You haven’t explained why you don’t think the environmental experience you have enables you to perform better with another skill in that same environment.

Isn’t that how it works in real life? That’s all I’m trying to do, model real life progression. In paper and pencil games this is cumbersome and severely inflicts gameplay and fun, but with computers can be completely transparent. You simply have your units train, you have them fight. If you’re smart you’ll train them before you fight.

I look forward to a response. I sincerely desire continued dialogue on this topic. I don’t want you to agree with me if I’m wrong. And that’s what I want to hear, why I’m wrong. Feedback will allow me to refine my model, my ideas.

Thanks for your comments.

Care,
Chris Rasmus

Florida, USA
RTS Engine in Development
http://www.knology.net/~heaven
Jesus is LORD!

[edited by - Heaven on March 25, 2002 3:53:42 PM]

Okay, so the goal is to differentiate between skill learned from training and skill learned from actual use.

Let''s use on stat to combine the both:
skill learned from actual use/skill learned from practice plus skill learned from actual use

or

actual skill/total skill

If I practice with a sword I will gain a certain skill.
Let''s say I achieve practice skill 20.
I''ve seen no combat though, so my stat is 0/20.

Now I''m wandering the wild, thinking all high of myself. I meet someone who''s only had a little bit of training, but who has learned most of what he knows from actual combat. His practice skill is 3, but he''s gained actual skill 12 by fighting.
His stat is 12/15.

His total skill is lower than my total skill (15 < 20) but he is still much better at fighting than I am (12 > 0).

You could create a system to determine which stat would ''beat'' which stat.

12/15 would beat 0/20, but would it beat 9/20?

Using this split stat, players would practice to raise their total skill, but they would have to actually fight to make sure that the ''actual skill'' keeps up with the ''total skill''

Practice would most definitely help.
5/15 should beat 5/10.
Maybe 5/15 even beats 6/10, maybe not (depends on system you want to use).

Of course, these split stats could apply to just about anything. Swordfighting, archery, pottery, swimming.

In a regular situation, the total skill could be used (for example, a character wants to take a swim in a pool), but for a dire situation the actual skill is used (for example, a player is forced to cross a river to get to his destination).