Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 02:49:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Skill based game design without classes, does it work? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Skill based game design without classes, does it work?  (Read 26324 times)
Slyfeind
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2037


Reply #35 on: November 19, 2009, 11:35:24 PM

As a sidenote, I love using shoemakers as a crafting example because of the Shoemaker and the Elves. The Brothers Grimm were clearly tradeskill gamers. Half their stories...cooks, tailors, sheesh!

"Role playing in an MMO is more like an open orchestra with no conductor, anyone of any skill level can walk in at any time, and everyone brings their own instrument and plays whatever song they want.  Then toss PvP into the mix and things REALLY get ugly!" -Count Nerfedalot
Nerf
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2421

The Presence of Your Vehicle Has Been Documented


Reply #36 on: November 20, 2009, 03:48:08 AM

Someone already quoted me on AC, but I've got to bring it up again - the problem of killing shit for XP only becomes a problem for a skill-based system when that XP is only used to advance the level and when you level you get to assign certain points based on class.  The AC system of earned XP counting towards level (which was an arbitrary number that showed your basic level of advancement and iirc gave more hp/mana/etc)  Earned XP worked like we expect XP to, you kill shit and level, the difference was that it also added XP to an 'unspent' pool that you could spend to allocate points to stats or skills - any skills, crafting, various magic schools, different melee specs, runspeed, etc. 
Theres no need to do away with the level system, and if theres any PvP involved people want to be able to get some sort of gauge on the enemies possible power before engaging, but thats all it was, a number.  A level 30 or 40 that was minmaxed could easily beat a level 60 or 80+ that was poorly specced, spread out with lots of crafting, etc.
Sigh, I want to play that game again, but its just so fucking old now I couldn't even get out of the newbie dungeon the last time I tried a year or two ago.
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #37 on: November 20, 2009, 05:39:44 AM

If I may. Wurm has an interesting take on skill in general. Its kind of basic, but also because of that, removes the real worry about some of the issues above.

Players in Wurm are not limited in any way from gaining any skill, there are also no pools/points. Its 100% if you use it, you gain it. I think we only have a handful of skills that have another as a prerequisite.  There is also a random chance to gain an "Affinity" in one skill, that is like a bonus.

We do have skill decay, if you do not use a skill, it begins to decay, also, skill loss on death. If you die, all your skills take a hit (but on the flip side, all those skills that took a hit, now lev el up three times faster, until you reach your original value).

Keep in mind, one play act has the potential to raise more than one skill, such as chopping a tree will increase woodcutting, body strength, and axe use.


Now, many of the combat activities are, for most players, BEHIND the..um, domestic skills. But it is quite possible to do only combat if you wish, but you will have to get get gear and armor from somewhere (All items in game are player made, have a Quality level, and decay). Most players attempt to make a house, and start blacksmith, but to black smith you need ore, to get ore you need to mine ETC...

But again, we use no trees, no "professions", No real groping of any kind (We do have skills grouped, but the skills are directly skill-able, and add to that larger skill category total), just skills that are all baseline in rank, with maybe 5 out of the 30 or so skills that have any real prerequisite. Interesting tidbit, out of all accounts there are only 5 players that have more than 5 skill at max level. We DO have an "alpha class" of sorts, which is a champion of a god, essentially a player who has gained favor with a god, and is granted extra powers. However, those marked champions are subject to permadeath after 3 kills. We do not really have Flavor of the months (Also no respecs), or balance issues or many of the trappings of most skill based systems. Of course this is a simplification of the system we use, and I am sure I may have missed a few things, and there are a good number of factors that may partially limit or at least temper skill gain in all skills (Such as /time, effort, availability of resources).

But it is key to note, we have combat, lots of combat, perhaps, while not the most pretty or most animated ( :) ), we have lots of skills devoted to it. But, because of the extremely dynamic nature of the world (Terraform, building, burning 100% player made) we have given players OTHER things to focus on rather than JUST combat activities. We also make no distinction between "craftier" and "combat".

one other thing... even with classes removed from the game people will still think along "tank spank heal" and define skill sets with this paradigm.

Going to disagree, only because in this system, it is entirely possible to meltface and stab people. But are you going to do what it takes to create this template, and maintain it? (Magic is more or less a Champion/priest.god only thing) If your answer was yes, then the reward is, you can melt face/heal/stab heavy armor. A fitting reward for such an accomplishment.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2009, 05:50:58 AM by Mrbloodworth »

Today's How-To: Scrambling a Thread to the Point of Incoherence in Only One Post with MrBloodworth . - schild
www.mrbloodworthproductions.com  www.amuletsbymerlin.com
KallDrexx
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3510


Reply #38 on: November 20, 2009, 06:20:37 AM

Someone already quoted me on AC, but I've got to bring it up again - the problem of killing shit for XP only becomes a problem for a skill-based system when that XP is only used to advance the level and when you level you get to assign certain points based on class.

Honestly, this is why I like the idea behind Eve's skill system so much and why I really wish more MMOs would try to use it.  While I know there is a lot of angst about time based advancement rather than xp/combat based advancement I think this is the real way we need to go to get a real innovative MMO.

Not having to design the game for combat advancement means the developers can focus more on creating social systems and actual real adventures.  They don't have to worry about having to balance mob grinding vs quest xp because the only difference is money and equipment.  Instead they can focus on making the gameplay more compelling and interesting.

It also makes it easier for social networks to form.  There was a thread (in the Warhammer forums I think?) about why people would rather solo in games, and one of the conclusions was it takes too long to form a group.  Time based advancement means that if it takes longer to get a good group together it doesn't mean that you are blocking your advancement by waiting.

I'm not saying time based advancement is perfect and you can still have combat based advancement in the form of equipment and money, but I think allowing the developers to give a good reason to combat rather than advancement will help out in the long run.
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #39 on: November 20, 2009, 07:58:55 AM

Time-based advancement is a brilliant financial maneuver to extract money from the fans of ProgressQuest. 

Why do we even need skill advancement at all?  Why not just have the game be mini-game based?  If you want the best drops, you have to kill the hardest monsters.  If you want to craft the toughest items, you need to beat the toughest crafting game. 

Let's break the mold of old rpgs and make this interesting.  We don't need skill ups.  The only reason that the diku model has become so popular is that it rewards bad players for their persistence.  If you play long enough, you'll get the good stuff.  Make the learning curve the game.  If people take a while to learn the mechanics, it will take them longer to gain the rewards.  If a player is smart and a good gamer, they may be able to achieve more, faster. 

Sadly, this doesn't make for a good business model as it requires a lot of content generation and lacks enough roadblocks for the most hardcore of gamers.   

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #40 on: November 20, 2009, 08:21:02 AM

Thanks guys, you totally cleared that up.

"Me am play gods"
WayAbvPar
Moderator
Posts: 19268


Reply #41 on: November 20, 2009, 09:02:55 AM

My ideal advancement system-

*No levels

*Use skills to get better at them (also increases related attributes, which allows crafter types to passively ready their characters for combat if needed)

*Very broad (think EVE) skill set- combat, magic, healing, crafting, stealth/hiding/lockpicking/pickpocketing, etc

*Each 'Tier' of skill (on a 0-100 scale, say every 10 skill points) has special abilities, some are automatically gained, some found or granted from quests (crafting recipes, special spells)

*Using a special ability (be it a combat move, a spell, crafting an item,  etc) drains from an action pool (sum of attributes?) which regenerates slowly on it own, more quickly with rest (modified by equipment or surroundings)


*Equipped items affect abilities (armor interferes with spell casting and lowers 'action pool', etc)

*Skills slowly atrophy without use, but only down to to a certain level. Once you have passed a milestone in a skill (say every 25 points) you can only be lowered to the highest achieved milestone.


Characters are able to learn all skills. Keeping them all at the top level is likely impossible with skill atrophy. Combat groups will no longer need specialized classes, but will likely need to plan a way to allocate resources (action pools) to be most efficient.

Most items are fully transferable, but wear with use and need to be repaired (very expensive/skill intensive for powerful items)

I am sure there are gaping holes in this. How will players abuse this? Is it a viable system for PvP? I don't mind twinking (as far as I am concerned, it is a way to keep players subscribed!).

When speaking of the MMOG industry, the glass may be half full, but it's full of urine. HaemishM

Always wear clean underwear because you never know when a Tory Government is going to fuck you.- Ironwood

Libertarians make fun of everyone because they can't see beyond the event horizons of their own assholes Surlyboi
IainC
Developers
Posts: 6538

Wargaming.net


WWW
Reply #42 on: November 20, 2009, 09:24:00 AM

I am sure there are gaping holes in this. How will players abuse this?

People will macro the shit out of this system because that is what it rewards.

- And in stranger Iains, even Death may die -

SerialForeigner Photography.
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #43 on: November 20, 2009, 09:31:51 AM

I much prefer skill based systems, however it is vital to make one decision early -- what is the power difference between someone with a lot of skill and someone without?

If there is a large difference then it becomes exceedingly difficult to balance.  Much more so than a level-based system.  I think it is possible, but the team responsible needs a good sense of their own game's history, design goals, design philosophy, and how abilities affect every aspect of the game.  Pre-CU SWG could have been balanced, and the scrapped CR attempted to address those issues, unfortunately it had several factions pulling fundamental systems in random directions and it suffered greatly for it.

A system with more breadth than depth could still be incredibly complicated and difficult to maintain (Guild Wars is good, but it is why they say GW2 will have fewer abilities), however balancing against a narrow range of difficulty becomes much easier.  Fundamentally it breaks down to "can this encounter be beaten?" which then becomes a matter of how hard is it to do so.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
Numtini
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7675


Reply #44 on: November 20, 2009, 10:16:56 AM

In terms of skill based systems, AC came the closest. Use based advance is horrible, as the article said it just leads to grinding skills during power hour. Take AC's system and split the skills into combat and craft pools. I'd leave XP entirely in combat, just have it fill two pools at once. (I'd rather grind drudges than grind crafting.) For me, that would be perfection in terms of how you do advancement.

The big problem I've seen is that all skill based systems become nothing more than a zergfest of DPS with a self-healing ability. How you get around that without effectively reinventing classes like SWG is a really good question. Maybe a very wide tree with lots of options?

If you can read this, you're on a board populated by misogynist assholes.
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #45 on: November 20, 2009, 10:53:16 AM

A wide tree with lots of options.  Limited skill decks.  Slots for specific types of skills (with a few wildcards).  Maybe small synergy bonuses for 'equipping' related skills.  It's something which I would like to see explored more.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
Nerf
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2421

The Presence of Your Vehicle Has Been Documented


Reply #46 on: November 20, 2009, 02:32:08 PM

In terms of skill based systems, AC came the closest. Use based advance is horrible, as the article said it just leads to grinding skills during power hour. Take AC's system and split the skills into combat and craft pools. I'd leave XP entirely in combat, just have it fill two pools at once. (I'd rather grind drudges than grind crafting.) For me, that would be perfection in terms of how you do advancement.

The big problem I've seen is that all skill based systems become nothing more than a zergfest of DPS with a self-healing ability. How you get around that without effectively reinventing classes like SWG is a really good question. Maybe a very wide tree with lots of options?

Filling a combat and crafting XP pool simultaneously is a great idea, and would be great for making crafting available without forcing the player to make a choice that will gimp either of their ability to have fun.  If I were to re-do AC though, I think I'd probably split up the magic schools a bit more.  Instead of life/war/creature/item magic, I think splitting war and creature into damage types, and then a final school of stat/school buffs for creature would allow for specialization and choices as to which lines you wanted to follow.  Life magic split into benevolent/malevolent, and I'd probably leave item magic as it is.

I'd want to avoid 'trees' and other unlock cockblocks though, you shouldn't have to dump points into shit you're never going to use just to unlock the one good skill.  No idea how to balance it though, with any type of synergy between various schools, it's inevitable that theres going to be a handful of seperate but equal minmax choices that outclass everything else.
Count Nerfedalot
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1041


Reply #47 on: November 20, 2009, 09:38:40 PM

I disagree on combat being the source of all crafting experience because of the folks who would rather craft than do combat.  Most of the systems out there limit your crafting ability to your combat level as it is, forcing people into combat.   Why?  If you are going to put the effort into a crafting system and attendant economy to make crafting worthwhile, why turn around and force the people who want to craft into combat?  It's as self-defeating as forcing people who are only interested in combat to do crafting in order to maximize their combat abilities.

Now where having combat fill multiple experience pools at once might solve some real problems is if combat-related skills were divided into separate pools.  You could limit the ability of newbs to gimp themselves and simultaneously limit the hgih end of the min-maxers by having separate pools for attack, defense, recovery and utility (for example).   

Each of the pools would have various ladders you could progress in.  For attack you could choose between any or all of the ranged, melee or magic options which are hopefully all balanced against each other.  For defense you could choose between resistance, avoidance or mitigation, or mix and match, etc.  Recovery could be in-combat healing, out-of-combat healing, restoring power, etc.  And having utility would allow the addition of a lot of flavor/color abilities to be used in the game without people having to choose between flavor or combat effectiveness.

There are some weaknesses to such a scheme that would need to be ironed out of course.  Some will complain that everyone would end up being a tank-healer-mage.  First off, the shared pool for magic and melee dps eliminates the possibility of an effective tank-mage.  You're going to need to focus on one or the other or end up mediocre in both.  Secondly, having everyone have some form of healing seems a perfect way to break the holy trinity paradigm.  Or you could still support those who want to be healers by having one of the recovery choices being "heal others during combat".

You could further encourage specialization/differentiation by giving them yet another pool of points that they can spend wherever they wanted.

CoH and CO work kind of like this, but they force you to specialize and make sure you stay on their narrow tracks by restricting what content you can experiece based on your level vs the opposition's; if you're too low, you die; if you're too high, you don't get experience.   

Get rid of the levels, and base combat results on relative skill comparisons, attack type vs defense type.  Get rid of the "grey" mob syndrome by defining the exp of everything based on it's skills and hitpoints.  When you kill it, that's the exp you get, no matter what your skill.

Get rid of the situation where the level 50 will always destroy 10 level 25s. Instead have rapidly diminishing returns with increasing costs to progress on the ladders, combined with using mechanics that allow a level 1 to hit a level 50 reasonably often.  One idea to assist in this might be to make your defense abilities be split between all of the opponents attacking you.  So if three opponents attack you, you only defend against each with one third of your skill instead of defending against all three with your full skill.  It's not as if you could devote your full attention to each of them at the same time!

Use a fixed hit point system whereby a human has somewhere in the (narrow) range of x to y hit points, and it doesn't change from level to level (except a little perhaps depending on his choices in his defense pool.  So that level 50 may only get hit once by a level 1, but it's going to hurt almost as much as one hit from the level 50 on the level 1.  Which means a mob of level 1's will overrun a level 50 sooner or later.

Once you get past a certain level, advancement becomes a choice of getting just a little bit better with your attack, or maybe picking up a secondary attack type (maybe ranged if your primary is melee) and getting a lot of improvement in it.  This encourages horizontal advancement instead of vertical.

To avoid allowing everybody to end up knowing everything at max level given enough time, put limits on total exp pool size.  Say enough to max out two or three ladders in each pool.  Annoying, but I guess it's no different really than level limits.

Yes, I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Numtini
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7675


Reply #48 on: November 21, 2009, 06:08:25 AM

Quote
I disagree on combat being the source of all crafting experience because of the folks who would rather craft than do combat.  Most of the systems out there limit your crafting ability to your combat level as it is, forcing people into combat

The reason I favored comingling is I just can't think of a way to do crafting xp where you don't end up crafting 300 of this and throwing them away, then 500 of this and throwing them away, and 10000 of that and throwing them away. Min-maxing components and xp. To me, the macro craft and toss is what you want to eliminate.

Or if you let crafting generate xp and make it usable for combat skills, I see everyone macroing through crafting and pending the xp on combat skills.

If you can read this, you're on a board populated by misogynist assholes.
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #49 on: November 21, 2009, 10:11:11 AM

SWG's "usage xp" was a good idea that they didn't bother to implement well.  Idea being that a crafter gets xp when something he crafts gets used, thereby encouraging crafters to make useful things and market them well so they can get more usage xp.

Another element to making crafting less grindy would be to make individual items more difficult to craft but yield proportionally more xp.  If a crafter needs 1000 swords worth of xp to level, there will be more swords crafted than can ever be used unless you've got 1000 fighters per crafter.  Just scale the crafting process appropriately for your actual population to balance supply and demand.

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4701


Reply #50 on: November 21, 2009, 12:02:21 PM

SWG's "usage xp" was a good idea that they didn't bother to implement well.  Idea being that a crafter gets xp when something he crafts gets used, thereby encouraging crafters to make useful things and market them well so they can get more usage xp.

Another element to making crafting less grindy would be to make individual items more difficult to craft but yield proportionally more xp.  If a crafter needs 1000 swords worth of xp to level, there will be more swords crafted than can ever be used unless you've got 1000 fighters per crafter.  Just scale the crafting process appropriately for your actual population to balance supply and demand.
Conceptually I like both of these a lot, but mainly I wanted congratulate you on your snazzy post time. Allowing a player to gain experience by making one thing well rather than making a thousand versions of the same thing. The more involved the production process is, the fewer objects a player must have her character produce in order to feel like they've done the same amount of "work" (or experienced the same amount of time-sink).

if at last you do succeed, never try again
Count Nerfedalot
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1041


Reply #51 on: November 21, 2009, 08:57:18 PM

I think the craft fewer, better things to level up mechanism works best with crafting systems that take really long times to make things, but offline time counts.  Doesn't Fallen Earth work that way?

Again, EQ2 has some interesting nuances that solve a lot of the problems other crafting systems have had.  First off, you can craft useful stuff, so it's often not necessary to craft a zillion things that nobody can use.  Depends on the craft of course.  A provisioner can craft food that they can use or sell to other players even from very early levels on, selling everything he grinds for profit or at least covering costs.  A weaponsmith, on the other hand, is going to have to grind far more useless weapons than he can ever sell to level up.  But you can always sell the stuff you've made grinding for at least the cost of the fuel and such it required.  Also, crafters have the option to do work orders for the NPC crafting guilds, which gain them extra crafting experience plus faction with the guild.  And that guild faction gets you access to some very profitable recipes. 

I also like the what I call "Klingon Crafting Stations" EQ2 has.  They fight back! LOL  EQ2 crafters don't merely bake bread, the battle the oven into submission to get the items they want out of it.  And it's often pretty bloody.  In the early days I've heard people often died from crafting, but that's toned down now.  And the crafting is interactive, with you having to make some rapid decisions during its progress to counter events.  So grinding is still grinding, but it's almost as interesting as grinding mobs at least.

But far and away the most important factor to making crafting feel like it's not the red-headed step-child slapped in as an afterthought is that EQ2 crafted items are in demand by players, at all levels.  That, and that a 20th level crafter (or 22nd at least) can craft things useful for just about every 20-29th level player in the game.  Including himself if he chose a trade that produces stuff he needs.  Add in the best player-to-player brokerage system I've seen in all the games so far, and you have a very fun system.

Yes, I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #52 on: November 23, 2009, 01:03:16 AM

Ok, I spent the weekend working for a client so now I have some time to reply properly.

Crafting... the big topic.

I think, crafting ...
  • should be interesting
  • should be rewarding
  • should be more like combat than many people think
  • should be important
  • should be interesting (can't say that often enough)
  • should be full of detail

Crafting should be like a combat against Murphy. EQ2 did that well and even Vanguard had it like this (at least until they changed that). Working with hot metal means knowing your enemy.
The smithy is the place of battle.
The metal you work with is your enemy.
Your skills and your forging hammer are your weapons.
Your crafting clothes and your other tools are your equipment.
Crafting a sword should be like visiting a small dungeon with many challenges. Swords are more then some bent metal with leather straps. Crafting a sword should represent that.

During the crafting process there should be events that affect your progress and the quality of the result. Those events should be positive and negative. Positive effects have to be exploited, negative effects have to be countered appropriately. (this also counters makroing through crafting)
Using higher quality materials and components will yield higher quality items. Using special quality components and materials will yield special quality items. (color, hardness, cutting ability, weight...)

Working together with other crafters should be an option. Smithing is no one man job. You normally have a trainee that keeps the fire hot enough, brings you cool water to shock the metal and supplies you with whatever you need during the process of crafting. Why not use that in a game as well? Let people craft together to make more complex items easier. Let them hire an apprentice that gets free skill from helping an experienced crafter during the process (while making it easier for the experienced crafter to yield better results).
Want to make a magic sword? Don't make it to easy... making a magic sword means using rare materials that can take and supply the magic. Making a magic sword doesn't mean to craft a sword an put a spell on it. Sure, that will work as well but it will never give the same results like a sword that was crafted by 2 smiths and an apprentice while 3 summoners were conjuring arcane magic with the magic circle they drew around the anvil.
Casting a spell on a sword will give you a spellcasted mundane sword. Crafting an artifact on the other hand.... will give you an artifact. Tell me what you would prefer for your daily wolfslaying and what you would take to kill the dragon.


The crafting exp grind was addressed multiple times but never throughoutly. Oh how I loved to craft 3.100 wooden bread boards to gain enough woodworking skill to get on with other thinks in DAoC. GREAT FUN BIG TIME! ...
Villages and towns!!!
Give crafters quests like you give to your joedull adventurers. Let them work for the town they live in. Let them make furniture, anvils, tools or whatever to supply their hometown. Give them reward for making those items and supply them with the materials (Vanguard did). Give them rewards like fame, some money and from time to time some town gossip they can trade somewhere. People working as a smith in a small village tend to know EVERYTHING about Mary Ann's third child, Simon's house cat and the new landlords big pimple on his backside. Why not give them some gossip thats worth something to a ambitious political newbie. Give them some sort of town standing that represents the time they spent in working for the town (like you give adventurers for killing those damn a_giant_rats in the sewers). Give them a bonus if they actually live in that town (own or rent a house) or even have an own (or rented) workshop.

Crafting should be a potential way of playing, not something to supply the front. Don't stop with smith, fletcher, tailor. Why not implement real carpenters (has been done) for ingame furniture. Lets have painters, engravers, sculptors, tattoo artists, barbers, bartenders and whatever. Many games start building a crafting system but stop short of making it a viable way of playing the game. NO LIMITS in your crafting progress by your combat level or whatever. No "you have to mine or buy adamantiplutonimithrilium ore to advance past this point. Make it hard but interesting and available without combat.

This leads to two things the game needs as well. A well designed trading system and interactive towns.

1) Gathering professions for adventurers to make some additional money. Why not pick the moss from the dragons ass if that helps your domestic crafter to make a new potion. Why not pick up those funny black rocks with sparkling bits from the dungeon you went to last week and give them to your friends to make something useful from it. It is therefor a major thing to create a trading system that enables players without friends connection and big coalitions to get their hands on rare materials. A good auction house (organized, searchable, with price history and stuff), markets with npcs hired by players to sell their goods, vendors that do not only buy but resell the stuff people sold to them (therefor limiting their supplies to what people sold to them). There are many thoughts to put into this and lot and lots of work and time before a good economy is ready for implementation.

2) Towns. TOWNS! ... sorry, but thats another important thing for me that needs an own thread all for itself. (I might start one later).
Working in a town should be rewarding, working FOR a town should be so even more. Have quests for crafters given by town officials (maybe even political career players) that help the town to grow. Start with a small village and make crafters and adventurers work for the town to expand it. This way crafting in a town may offer so much content to a crafter that he might not leave his hometown until he wants to share his crafting knowledge with people around the world.



skills... the original topic.

Correct me if I'm wrong but not having skill groups, trees or whatever will lead to either a small number of skills that enable the player to do lots of things while progressing through the skill (which means a skilltree without options) or a vast number of unorganised skills that overwhelm new players. On the other hand I don't think that progressing through a skill tree must be a bad thing. Its a question how you structure the skill tree.
I'd want to avoid 'trees' and other unlock cockblocks though, you shouldn't have to dump points into shit you're never going to use just to unlock the one good skill.  No idea how to balance it though, with any type of synergy between various schools, it's inevitable that theres going to be a handful of seperate but equal minmax choices that outclass everything else.
Why should your first skill be useless once you learn the next level? Diablo II did try to make this work somehow different. Make entry level skills in a way that they are still useful later on. If you have a combat move that is one of the firsts to learn in your sword skill tree then make it so that it doesn't scale into uselessness by progressing into the tree. Make it an opener for a attack skill chain that scales well with your attributes and skill level. Give it a special effect that is useful all through the game or implement a later skill that adds a new feature to your tier 1 skill so that you start using it again.

Crafting skills for example shouldn't be ordered by used material. They should be ordered by items. Making a sword might be a Tier 2 skill but working with adamant is the same as working with ordinary steel. Try to get your hands on adamant or whatever with a small skill and see how people react if you only produce mediocre adamant swords because you lack the skill to craft swords in the first place.
Each crafting skill tree should have the option to choose from many skills even at the first level. Only really complex items should be on higher tiers along with certain masteries that enable you to make even better stuff or work as a crafting group leader for artifact creation. Making a ring or mirror armor is more complex than making some studded stuff. Are you a smith or an armorer? Do you only work with metal and buy leather strips from your amazon warrior mage shoemaker or do you make your own shoes...  leather strips and create all sorts of armor?

No cockblocks that are useless later on! Only the "good cockblocks" that are somewhat realistic. A novice smith won't be able to craft a plated armor with movable parts, some ornaments and an opening hatch for the barbarian warrior to relieve himself without getting out of the armor. He might nevertheless be able to work on parts of said armor. "Plate armor" should not be a one_for_all skill that turns metal into armor but require you to have all the parts as well. You can buy those parts or craft them yourself. Hinges, plates, straps, reinforcements, engraved ornamental plates and stuff could all be tier 1 skills. combining them into an armor might be tier 2 or 3 at the highest.





Exp, the last topic (for this already to long post).

Fighting stuff should unlock combat skill points. (combat sphere)
Casting spells should unlock magic skill points. (magic sphere)
Building stuff should unlock crafting skill points. (crafting sphere)
Dancing and singing should unlock entertainment skill points. (entertainment sphere)
Working with people in any way could unlock political skill points. (political sphere)

Attributes are useful across skills and spheres. Having high con and str will be useful in both smithing and fighting. Fletching and archery profit from higher dex. Both theology and magic might profit from int and wisdom. Charisma will help in politics and entertainment (as well as maybe animal taming) and so on.

Working in a smith for 3 months will help you when you first pick up a sword to fight giant rats. Fighting for 3 years might make it less draining to work in a smithy even though you might not be used to the heat if you didn't battle demigods in hades during those years. Maybe there are even some similarities between a forging hammer and a war hammer... who knows.




Enough for now, the post is already to long.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #53 on: November 27, 2009, 11:24:04 AM

To bad, I think I killed the thread. I should know better than posting a two screens long reply.

Let's see if I can summarize it.

Crafting should be interesting, rewarding, important, full of details and well, interesting.

Being a crafter should be as much a game as killing stuff. Designing the crafting system has to take account of that important detail. The process of crafting has to be interesting and fun. The rewards and skill progress has to be fun and the level of detail has to be deep enough (quality, durability, different styles etc) and there should be crafter quests that are more then "make 10 of x and sell them to y."

  • Crafting should also be something to do as a group for bonus effects.
  • Creating special items should be challenging but possible and the resulting items should be on par with the best stuff adventurers can find.
  • Crafting should definitely not be tied to your adventurer level.

Crafting needs two things to work and feel right in a game. A well designed economy/trading system and interactive towns.


Skills

I'd want to avoid 'trees' and other unlock cockblocks though, you shouldn't have to dump points into shit you're never going to use just to unlock the one good skill.

Skill trees are kind of helpful if you otherwise would end with a 15 pages list of skills or you end up with a small number of skills and each represents one thousand things. The important thing is to prevent early skills from becoming useless. If you learn tear 3 and 4 skills, this might add to a tier 1 skill to keep it on the same level of the new skills or something like this. (like Diablo 2 but more complex and actually working)


Experience

There should be skill category based exp. Fighting won't make you a good smith and tailoring won't improve your singing talent. Still there is a hidden bonus between skill groups. If you fight and fight, you get stronger, which then will make you a better smith because you need some strength for smithing. Intelligent use of attributes is the key to this.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #54 on: November 28, 2009, 09:30:29 PM

Being a crafter should be as much a game as killing stuff. Designing the crafting system has to take account of that important detail. The process of crafting has to be interesting and fun. The rewards and skill progress has to be fun and the level of detail has to be deep enough (quality, durability, different styles etc) and there should be crafter quests that are more then "make 10 of x and sell them to y."




Disagree in a major way.  If you are making it simialr to the process of combat (like you mentioned in the long version), you are basically saying that crafters don't get a style of play that is any different.  I LOVED being able to casually read a book while mining in EVE if i wanted to.  One of the most interesting parts of being a crafter is to have a non combat way of participating.  I think "fun" gets tossed around too much.  its way too subjective and it doesn't mean much.  If by "fun" you mean "exciting" I disagree.  I usually like my crafting to be a relatively (to combat) relaxing experience.  I don't mind if I'm in danger (like in a PvP area) while gathering or something, so I have to be on my toes, but I don't think effectively turning crafting into a mini game is the right idea.



I do however agree with your other points.



Quote

Crafting should also be something to do as a group for bonus effects.
Creating special items should be challenging but possible and the resulting items should be on par with the best stuff adventurers can find.
Crafting should definitely not be tied to your adventurer level.

Crafting needs two things to work and feel right in a game. A well designed economy/trading system and interactive towns.


No problems here really.
Count Nerfedalot
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1041


Reply #55 on: November 29, 2009, 07:04:45 AM

I don't think effectively turning crafting into a mini game is the right idea.

This is going to be one of those personal preference things that will never get a consensus.  I suspect most folks who migrate towards crafting as their primary mode of play will disagree with you on that one.  Whereas many who pursue crafting as a sideline activity to fill time or as a change of pace will heartily agree.  And the powergaming min/maxers who craft only if it makes their characters stronger than using that time to level will want crafting to take as little player time as possible, no matter what the actual mechanics are.


Crafting needs two things to work and feel right in a game. A well designed economy/trading system and interactive towns.

Interactive towns being a requirement is debateable.  Auction and broker houses (part of your first requirement) work quite well at connecting buyers with sellers across different timezones.  Again, EQ2 excels at this with their broker system which still rewards players with cost savings if they bypass the broker middleman and go directly to the seller's house to make their purchases.  What EQ2 lacks is some transparently easy way of maintaining or at least resuming the dialog between merchant and customer.  It's possible, but very clunky.  A  player-driven work order system would add to that as well.  Let players post what they want and how much they're willing to pay.  Seems like somebody did that already, but I'm not awake enough to remember who. 

The true second requirement for a successful crafting system is player demand for crafted items of all levels.  EQ1 failed horribly at this.  SWG (pre-NGE), Fallen Earth, EQ2 and even AO all did this well.

An integral part of the economy requirement worth elaborating on is the value assigned to crafted and harvested items by NPC merchants.  I'm more of a harvester/explorer than crafter myself, so I used to think otherwise, but forcing harvested items into the player market by making them unwanted by NPCs is critical to driving a robust crafting economy.  As well as providing an invaluable lever for tuning that economy by manipulating the drop rates.  Likewise, assigning all crafted items a minimum value at NPC merchants at least equal to its manufacturing costs provides a critical sink for all the surplus items players have to craft in pursuit of improving their skill.

Yes, I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #56 on: November 29, 2009, 06:22:32 PM



This is going to be one of those personal preference things that will never get a consensus.  I suspect most folks who migrate towards crafting as their primary mode of play will disagree with you on that one.  Whereas many who pursue crafting as a sideline activity to fill time or as a change of pace will heartily agree.  And the powergaming min/maxers who craft only if it makes their characters stronger than using that time to level will want crafting to take as little player time as possible, no matter what the actual mechanics are.


I was a dedicated crafter in EVE for a long time, and the last thing I want to do is be playing some sort of mini game to actually do the crafting.    To me the fun part of the being a crafter is the metagame of tracking markets, buying and selling, the impact on the game world and other players that I can have with no combat whatsoever.  Adding a silly little minigame like Free Realms adds nothing to that at all.

I don't craft because I want the actual process of "crafting" to be fun, I want to do it because it gives me an interesting way to interact with other players and the game world without slashy slashy.  If I want to master some goofy little mini game, I just head over to newgrounds and play some flash games or something.
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #57 on: November 30, 2009, 12:04:15 AM

I don't craft because I want the actual process of "crafting" to be fun, I want to do it because it gives me an interesting way to interact with other players and the game world without slashy slashy.  If I want to master some goofy little mini game, I just head over to newgrounds and play some flash games or something.

In my opinion, thats right and wrong at the same time.
Crafting should include decisions about a lot of things. Do you go for quality or quantity? (item to sell or item to give to npc for a task or to improve the growth of the town you work in) Do you want to be cheap on the material to save money or make more profit or do you want the job done and don't care how much materials it takes as long as you get the best results.
I think, crafting is about decisions. The results of said decisions will have an effect on your merchant game afterwards. If you have to make said decisions, why not include them into the process of crafting, give them some nice graphics and sounds and make it a game of sorts. Add in stuff like rare situations (perfect timing, good temperature in the forge, lucky tools or whatever) and depend player decisions on them (ignoring the  chance of higher quality means less risk but no exceptional results / countering the bad effects right in time to prevent damage to the item or your tools) and you have an interactive crafting experience instead of a "loading bar"ish one.

If you decide to be a merchant, then be a merchant. Learn to work with the market and meet player demands. Employ npcs to work in exactly the right place, make trade agreements, organize trading routes and caravans, buy low and sell high. That has nothing to do with being a crafter.

For being a crafter there might be different reasons. I'm with Count Nerfedalot on that one. I played crafters in some many games so far and the games I was most excited to get back to the slashy part again were those with the more boring crafting systems. If you go out there to fight, you don't want to click the enemy you fight, define that you use a sword in the process and have a combat loading bar and when the bar is full, the enemy drops dead and you move on to the next one. It is true that thats more or less what combat in games is often about but you wouldn't like it, would you? You want to press buttons and see the results of your decisions, let them be good or bad. If you want crafting to be any less, then you don't want to craft, you want to get crafted items and maybe it would be better to get a friend do the crafting and you get to be the merchant you want to be.

As I said crafting should be like fighting, I think I chose the wrong words and examples but crafting should be more like adventuring. Rewarding in many ways.



This is going to be one of those personal preference things that will never get a consensus.
True.

Interactive towns being a requirement is debateable.
[...]
The true second requirement for a successful crafting system is player demand for crafted items of all levels.

True again. I am a great fan of player cities but I haven't yet seen a working system. Either player cities become ghost towns or they are not navigateable because of bad structure. As I said earlier the development of a player town system would fill a whole new thread and I promised Schild not to start more topics any soon and get more reading and participating done ^^

Demand of crafted items is a big thing. It includes the rareness of materials, the complexity of the crafting process, additional requirements and the comparison to looted items and quest rewards. I think that quest rewards should be mediocre but useful. If there are epic quest lines, then the rewards should be more useful. If there are epic encounters, then they should have special loot as a trophy for those who slew the dragon (again). Crafted items should (at least in my humble opinion) always be at par with quest/loot rewards. I prefer items crafted from dragon scale, bone or whatever to a dragon dropping a warhammer, a greater broadsword, 2 shoulder plates and a plate armor.
I'm all for epic quest lines but they should be about lore, adventure and an adequate reward, not about equipment.

Working on the system of marketing in the game is important. There has to be a balance of auction houses and brokers, player shops, npcs, direct trade. The more complex the system is, the more rewarding it has to be. The more complex it gets the more careful you have to be about new players and their introduction. Selling to an NPC and buying from an NPC should be the last straw - low profit, expansive purchase.
Using the auction house should mean a loss due to fees. Setting up a shop should take some experience at being a merchant. Giving the "right" to sell the items to another player should be a viable option.
You could implement that by using a token system. If you crafted 10 magic broadswords, then you could give some merchant friend of yours those swords to sell them. Thats fine and all. If you want crafters to let strangers sell their work, there will be no trust. Using a token of some sort, you could give some stranger "the right" to sell 10 magic broadswords. If he finds a buyer (or 10) then he gets his share and you get the profit. If he don't, you still have your swords.

This would prevent theft on the merchant side but your game would be ... more protected. Some players (the hardcore fan base out there) would definitely prefer a solution without such a safety line.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #58 on: November 30, 2009, 08:14:54 AM

I loved the fluctuating resources in SWG.  That is all.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4701


Reply #59 on: December 01, 2009, 02:44:25 PM

Most of the skill based systems I've seen have been heavily weighted to the high end. If you receive new skills by putting enough points in a category, those skills are best that you receive last. If you want the odds to be high that you'll succeed in a percentage based skill system, you really need to max that category. 7xGM in UO limited the breadth of characters there. It was almost worthless to get most skills to 80.

Why not front load the system? Provide the most straightforward, desireable abilities early on and provide BIG jumps in capability for a few points. Specialization would provides more esoteric and unique class abilities and certitude of percentages... but at a steeper cost for a less tangible return. Is it possible to make room for the Jack-of-all-Trades without killing the specialist?

if at last you do succeed, never try again
Count Nerfedalot
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1041


Reply #60 on: December 01, 2009, 04:45:36 PM

I loved the fluctuating resources in SWG.  That is all.

I did too.  I also hated them because, like most of the new things SWG tried, it was implemented poorly and only integrated with the rest of the game systems in a half-assed fashion (at best).  Having to check every single harvester every single day to see if the resource it was standing on magically vanished over night was asinine.  Having a given resource only last a few days, and often being reset after only a day or even less, was stupid and incompetent.  Having to fund the harvester for X amount of hours and then losing unused funds if the resource vanished before X hours was just plain mean.  Or lazy.  I never quite figured out where the devs were on the scale of malicious - incompetent.   

A far better system would have spawned some variable amount of material in each "square".  Your survey skill would determine how accurate your reading was of that amount.  And maybe there would be a variable for how difficult it would be to extract.  And that resource would remain in those squares until they were extracted.  Kinda like rocks in the earth, ya know?

SWG is a monument to the worthlessness of good ideas without good implementation and proper integration.


Yes, I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #61 on: December 01, 2009, 11:27:18 PM

Yeah, SWG could have been a pretty good game. I liked the theme, I liked many of their ideas but in the end it was mostly ... meh.

I agree with you on the topic of resources but we got a bit offtopic with that.

pxib, I am currently thinking about ways to solve that front load you are talking about for the following reasons.
  • Grind is what most games turn into until you reach the point, where you can do what you want to and then you realize, that you don't have much to do now. Some games manage to dress the grind to look like something fun but in the end you often didn't so much like the grind itself but the improvements and character development you achieved on the way.
  • PvP is often a "end game" experience. A game shouldn't be about grinding until all pve is done and you can finally kick some ass in pvp.
  • People don't like the idea of learning useless stuff to unlock more useful stuff. I played some D2 chars with level 1 and passive skills until level 18 or 24...

Let's take a fighter. He starts learning how to fight with his sword and shield. He soon gets some good techniques and moves that do some front load damage. He can now either spent his remaining points on magic to cast a shield spell, flaming sword or a quick fireblast to scorch his enemy or he decides to learn some healing magic to mend his own wounds. Instead of going the magic route, he could start learning more combat skills (running charge, power jump, a power strike that hits enemies with a forceful blow within some distance, roundhouse kick or whatever) or master another weapon, dual wielding or concentrate on offensive/defensive combat styles.

The problem I see is that different classes used to be more or less complex. If you have a class system, thats no problem. People are used to that because it has always been like that. If you use a skill system, how do you get a pure fighter, a combat mage, a redmage and a healer at par.

A fighter needs to know his weapon, his armor, combat techniques and a little bit more.
A mage needs to know his combat magic.
An archer needs to know his ranged weapon, some armor stuff, ballistics and some combat techniques.
A healer needs to know his healing magic.
A paladin needs to know most of the fighter stuff + his holy magic stuff.
A ranger needs to know what the archer knows + animal lore + survival + some melee weapon stuff + herbology

If you say that to be a good fighter and a good archer in this game you need the same amount of skill points spent, then how many skill points do you need to be a ranger? Same amount as an archer + x? Will an archer be able to spent those x points on archery skills to be a specialist? Will a ranger then still be a viable choice? I'd like to see fighter specialists that spent said x on fighter skills and not some other stuff because they already maxed out fighting. Still not maxing out fighting shouldn't be too much of a loss in fighting capability.

How do you get a mage into this system. Do you need skill points to learn new spells? Do you learn groups of spells or single spells that you can combine to get new ones or synergies?

I like the idea that I can define for myself what I want my druid to be like. Let him be some nature freak who knows healing, can make the vegetation fight for him, bond with animals and guard the forests or let him be some supernatural feral fighter using natures strength to aid him in his battle while using natures wisdom to heal the wounds of his comrades during a longer fight. Let him be a paladin of nature or whatever.


Front loading skills is also a good idea for a pvp game because I don't have to grind weeks of pve to get to some meaty skills for pvp combat. Front loading most of the good skills and having a short time of training for reaching the later skills opens up the problem of long time motivation again. Having to grind through 70 levels of "ding" helps to keep a player in the game for a while. Offering to do that on 3 other chars/classes lengthens that time. Being able to master all your desired skills in like a week or two means that the combat / game play has to offer the entertainment needed to keep playing. That could be either pvp or creating the virtual world, cities, commerce, adventures, role play etc. and you can't code that player behavior into the game, you can only provide the tools and freedom needed for the players to do so.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
Draegan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10043


Reply #62 on: December 02, 2009, 08:43:31 AM

No class, no levels.

Character creation is just picking a race and your base stats.
Your race determines how many skills and spells you can learn.  I.e. a Human can learn 15 skills and 16 spells.
Skills are easily leveled to a certain point.  Then usage takes over, though the advantage from 60/100 skill and 80/100 skill is minimal.
Maximum skill level is dependent on base stats.
Advanced skills are prerequisite of less-advanced skills, think Civilization Tech-Trees.

Gear can be worn by everyone and traded by anyone.  No binds, no level/state reqs.

Then you can tack on any type of game play.  I'd prefer a PVP system but whatever.

The only tricky thing is do you allow players to somehow "remort" or advance their base stats or skill/spell slot numbers?  I'd say no.  Or limit it to one joining a group/guild in game for money or something.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 08:45:42 AM by Draegan »
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #63 on: December 02, 2009, 01:04:41 PM

No class, no levels.

Character creation is just picking a race and your base stats.
Your race determines how many skills and spells you can learn.  I.e. a Human can learn 15 skills and 16 spells.
Skills are easily leveled to a certain point.  Then usage takes over, though the advantage from 60/100 skill and 80/100 skill is minimal.
Maximum skill level is dependent on base stats.
Advanced skills are prerequisite of less-advanced skills, think Civilization Tech-Trees.

Gear can be worn by everyone and traded by anyone.  No binds, no level/state reqs.

Then you can tack on any type of game play.  I'd prefer a PVP system but whatever.

The only tricky thing is do you allow players to somehow "remort" or advance their base stats or skill/spell slot numbers?  I'd say no.  Or limit it to one joining a group/guild in game for money or something.

Replied in the EQ Next thread, but bringing the discussion down here is probably more appropriate.

As I said up there, Darkfall seems similar to this.  The skill/spell limit is absent though, given enough time you could theoretically max out everything, though I imagine it would take some serious time.  In Darkfall your base stats increase through skill use (mining slowly (REALLY slowly) increases your strength for instance) 

Some issues with this though:

How to you prevent people from AFK skilling up without making the game tedious?  Darkfall example: Initially you could skill up, say, lesser magic, by flinging spells into the sky all day (which encouraged macroing.  They've tried to remedy this by reducing the skill gain from skills/spells that don't hit an enemy, and increasing the amount you get from hitting an enemy, but it hasn't eliminated the problem, I don't think.


(Also, I'm probably opening myself to ridicule here, but I will admit that I decided to just up and buy Darkfall last week because I was so damn curious.  Its actually a pretty decent game.  There are some issues that I'd be happy to talk about if people want to get into it, but its not nearly the train wreck people expected it to be.)
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #64 on: December 03, 2009, 01:02:39 AM

Draegan, you pretty much summed up what I am thinking about. A player race should include certain max ratings for attributes as well because I am all for freedom of choice but a gnome fighter should in the long run be more nimble but less sturdy than a hill giant fighter with the same experience.

I'd still play the gnome warrior or the troll paladin because thats the way I like it but many people will then choose the strongest and toughest race for a fighter class. Should they later decide to try the magicians path, they will be able to but within certain limits. Still I think that difference should not be to big because I don't want to completely discourage people from playing untypical race/play style combinations or trying out a new path in game.


No level/stat requirements is another thing though. I'd let anybody wear a plate armor and warhammer if they want to but if Joe Combatmage decides to do so, he won't be able to move fast in that armor, let alone swing that heavy weapon well enough to hit an experienced enemy. There should be a penalty for stats way to low and a little bonus for stats above the requirements to use the equipment properly. If you use said equipment long enough, it will have an effect on your stats (most likely increasing them through training) and skills (familiarization with the equipment) and you will get better but Joe won't ever be as good as Sam the barbarian.

I don't mind if mages want to wear plate armor. I'd only give them penalties like longer cast time, slower movement and stuff like that. They should be able to counter those disadvantages through skill and training but doing so they will in the long run trade some "firepower" against some durability which is all right in my opinion. I'd like to see more cleric like players casting healing spells and holy lightning strikes around them while wearing a full body plate armor, a medium shield and a maul. Give them penalties they can overcome or adapt to by changing their playing style.


About the problem of AFK and Macro Skilling... I'm not sure you can completely prevent that without hurting the normal players too much. I'd give a player the chance to train his sword skill by hitting a dummy for a while. You can surely learn the basics this way. More advanced techniques though should require some more advanced training. Fighting another player in pvp should always count as more advanced training. I know that means guilds will meet somewhere in the woods, start fighting each other and healing the fighters all the time so that nobody dies and everybody gets a big load of exp/skill up. Still, I wouldn't want people to be forced into PvE to train their skills they want to use in PvP.

I thought about linking skill experience to a certain real time amount and thereby limiting the daily skill progress. On the other hand that would mean the macroing would still take place but only once a day for one hour instead of 12. I'm not sure if that would be a good idea, because it could result in more ambitious players logging in only to max their skill to the daily skill exp cap and then log out again because they can't get any further anyway. I didn't play EVE but there seem to be two positions about their skill advance system, those who love it and those who hate it. Other games tried rested exp but I always took that as extra exp while I didn't play and never as a means to limit my characters advancement.

Ive seen lines of campfires in Runescape that went on for miles because people trained making camp fires by stocking up on wood and then hitting the same buttons over and over again. There were people fighting the lowest mobs there were to get more skill ups and other stuff like that. Maybe I wouldn't prevent it but encourage as many people as possible to advance through actual gameplay and not afk macroing by giving them rewards for their work and making the skilling as enjoyable as possible.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
Draegan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10043


Reply #65 on: December 03, 2009, 07:53:09 AM

Some issues with this though:

How to you prevent people from AFK skilling up without making the game tedious?  Darkfall example: Initially you could skill up, say, lesser magic, by flinging spells into the sky all day (which encouraged macroing.  They've tried to remedy this by reducing the skill gain from skills/spells that don't hit an enemy, and increasing the amount you get from hitting an enemy, but it hasn't eliminated the problem, I don't think.


(Also, I'm probably opening myself to ridicule here, but I will admit that I decided to just up and buy Darkfall last week because I was so damn curious.  Its actually a pretty decent game.  There are some issues that I'd be happy to talk about if people want to get into it, but its not nearly the train wreck people expected it to be.)

Well you don't NEED to macro the skills to make the better.  Skilling them up either makes them miss less/fizzle less or (maybe) satisfy a prereq.  The potency of the ability would be based off stats.  

Here's an example in my game.  You're a heavy INT/WIS (or whatever mind stats) character.  You decide to "Learn" the spell Lesser Heal.  (Learn is a command in this game, you learn the spell and it takes a slot away from your max available)  After you learn the spell your skill is now ranked "Novice" or you can use a number.  I prefer using just words instead of numbers, but whatever.  You then use "practices" with your trainer.  Depending on your INT/WIS value some formula determines what the max level you can practice it to.  So if you have high INT/WIS your Novice spell can be fully practiced to "Adept" or whatever out of max_whatever.  Whereas low INT/WIS would practice it up to Average or less_whatever out of max_whatever.  This same formula also regulates your how much of max_whatever you can get to through use.

This also works with DEX based skills etc.  So your focused stats benefit the skills associated with them.

Also to prevent wearing "practicing gear" this formula only works off your base stats.

--

In response to elements' topic of gear.  Yes anyone can wear gear however I'd like to resurrect an old MUD staple in "movement points" or "fatigue points".  The heavier the armor the more fatigue you have when you move, and sometimes you would have to rest to move again.  However if you have higher strength it affects you less.  So mages could wear plate but then they have terrible movement.

If you wore appropriate gear for your stats you would never run out of movement points just running around though.  Only during combat perhaps.  It's a tricky situation though.  It'll be tough to balance before it gets extremely annoying.  It might be a waste of time to develop that type of system.

This would only make sense in a PVP game though.  Useless in a PVE game.

edit to add:
I'd be interested in your Darkfall impressions.  I'm curious about the game as well, but not $50 curious.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 07:59:08 AM by Draegan »
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #66 on: December 03, 2009, 10:00:49 AM

[

If you wore appropriate gear for your stats you would never run out of movement points just running around though.  Only during combat perhaps.  It's a tricky situation though.  It'll be tough to balance before it gets extremely annoying.  It might be a waste of time to develop that type of system.

This would only make sense in a PVP game though.  Useless in a PVE game.

edit to add:
I'd be interested in your Darkfall impressions.  I'm curious about the game as well, but not $50 curious.

Darkfall has a stamina system that is similar.  You don't use stamina running at normal speed (in fact, you regen it while doing so).  But sprinting, swinging a weapon, jumping, riding (mount) all takes Stamina.   It isn't quite as specific as your system though, i don't think.  Forinstance there is just an "Armor Proficiency" skill, which goes up while you are wearing armor, and reduces penalties for associated with all armor.  I'm also not sure if stamina is used up faster by doing actions in heavy armor or not.

I like this kind of system as well, but I think that you are right about the possible annoying nature of it.  If done properly, I think it would be similar to a second mana bar that functions as a pool for doing physical things instead of magic things.  Darkfall does it this way, but has room for improvement.

Also, I PMed you more extensive Darkfall impressions.
Draegan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10043


Reply #67 on: December 03, 2009, 10:43:27 AM



Also, I PMed you more extensive Darkfall impressions.

Chicken.
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #68 on: December 03, 2009, 01:12:46 PM



Also, I PMed you more extensive Darkfall impressions.

Chicken.

Do you REALLY want me to bump the Darkfall thread....realllllllly? ACK!
element_of_void
Terracotta Army
Posts: 40


Reply #69 on: December 04, 2009, 12:40:41 AM

I wouldn't mind a copy of that pm. ^^ I don't have the time to test it myself right now.

I'm with you on that stamina concept. I know many people think that there are enough mana bars and stuff out there but somehow a fatigue bar is useful. I think playing a game with combat should also be about managing resources. If you front load lots of damage, you will soon run out of stamina and have to use less powerful attacks (or you concentrate on blocking) while you try to get your breath back.

Your idea on skills and attributes is close to mine. I think that skills should be linked to attributes that determine the "power" or effect of skills. What I'd like to know from you is, "How would you design character development attribute wise?"
As I said before, I'd get rid of levels that define your stats and hp. Hitpoints depend on your physical attributes and maybe special passive skills. I thought of linking attributes to skills and if you learn a skill, you raise the cap for said attributes. Using that skill (or other skills with the same attributes) will increase your attributes slowly. There should be a max value for each attribute and a max value for the sum of all attributes to prevent people taking certain skills only to increase their cap. This idea comes with many potential design flaws and would need some adjustments.

This way a character that trains fighting skills will raise his fighting skill based attributes. Should he learn some magic, he will increase his mental attributes but only to a certain level representing the amount of magic knowledge he gathered. The more magic he learns, the better he will be able to use magic because of higher attributes.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel,
I'm just curious why the square one didn't work out in the long run.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Skill based game design without classes, does it work?  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC