quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
I''ll be hacking away at a monster for about 5 minutes. Then my partner who happened to be behind a tree healing himself and taking a piss, just wanders up and hits the monster... killing it and taking all the XP or the majority of it. While I''m left scratching my head with my axe wondering "what the hell just happened?!". So I''m wondering if you could put some kind of XP bonus/sharing system.

Yes, this is the sort of thing we''ve been talking about, but we''ve already addressed this issue. XP is shared evenly between all party members, to include cooperative play.

Bonuses to your skills come through use. When you hack at something, you get better at hacking. Thus, players have seperate incentives to both hack and cooperate and no one ends up feeling cheated. Theoretically.


----
Darryl Long: Lead Coder The Pythian Project

quote: Oort: Basically, the conclusion that I''ve come to is that although side-quests (of any kind) appear on the surface to be a really cool idea, they boil down to a lot of work and introduce some very tricky game-balancing issues. I think my team will have enough trouble just producing the content and balancing our existing single-quest design as it is. Therefore, I''m not going to add side-quests to the design despite really liking the idea.

Fair ''nuf. It really would add a lot of work, but might be a nice idea to keep on the back burner while fleshing out the rest of the system.

I''ve updated the design document with most of the suggestions we''ve discussed, plus some contributions of others on my team (spells, item storage, etc.)

The next topic I''d like to discuss is the Skills System. The system we had in mind is somewhat like a relational database and somewhat like a artificial neural network. Each node in the skill system represents an individual skill (e.g. Broad Sword). Skills are related to other skill nodes via "dependencies", each of which has a weight (i.e. the important of the relationship).

As an example, take the Two-Handed Sword. It would be related to the general "Sword" skill as well as the "Heavy Weapons Handling" skill. It might have a dependency weight upon "Sword" of 0.7 and a weight to "Heavy Weapons" of 0.3

Each skill node has a value. So the value of "Sword" might be 0.2 (in the range 0.0 to 1.0) while "Heavy Weapons" might be 0.3 (in the same range). The value of "Two Handed Sword" is 0.4.

The relationships between nodes come into effect when a skill is actually used. If you use a "Two Handed Sword", you are employing your "Sword" and "Heavy Weapons" skills as well. The general importance of the exterior skills (the skills "Two Handed Sword" is related to) is represented by the Exterior Weight. This is a normalizing factor so that the final calculated skill value remains in the range 0.0 to 1.0.

The final value of your skill with the Two Handed Sword would be:

Value = Interior Weight * 2H Sword Value + Exterior Weight * (Sword Weight * Sword Value + Heavy Weap. Weight * Heavy Weap. Value)
Value = 0.6 * 0.4 + 0.4 * (0.7 * 0.2 + 0.3 * 0.4)
Value = 0.24 + 0.104
Value = 0.344

Giving this character roughly a 34% skill value (the maximum being 100%, of course).

Finally, every time you use a skill is goes up a little (as do the skills it is related to). Also, if you do not use a skill for a long period of time, it begin to decrease. This is to prevent tankmages.

Any thoughts? Are we missing anything?


----
Darryl Long: Lead Coder The Pythian Project

As I reread this thread (and watched the clock, it''s almost time for CS I), I noticed a few things and have a few suggestions

I agree puzzles should be multi-player oriented.
But side quests, well depending on the scenario of course, should be based on the race. An example being you have to get free the village elder from the 3rd basement and get him out without being caught. Obviously that''s a group effort. But a side quest would be, IMO, something along the lines of: going to a Berman village and having the player''s old history teacher tell him of an ancient rune that allows the player''s (or other Bermans in his group) wings to fly not only glide. Get what I saying?

Also I think human should be the race that invents. So for instance, let''s say your Golurut has your run-of-the-mill Valun Death Sword. Well if the Golurut is with a human then he could get an "upgrade". As the human goes from village to village, he picks up different ideas/trade secrets. Afterwards the human is able to fashion the Death Sword into a Death Ginsu. Obviously that changes the stats of the Golurut and weapon. The "upgrade" will be unique and not your usual Death Sword + 1 type of thing.
(Basically you can only get the upgrade if you have a human and if you''ve been to specific places)

Someone mentioned leveling up by having your teammates injure you then having a mage/spellcaster heal the group. Well how about allowing the players to do that. ...but when they do level up their stats will decrease. I think that will persuade players not to do that.

Also level interaction has never been mentioned (I don''t think).
Hard to explain so here''s a scenario (bare with me ).
Your party is in a village and you are attacking a swamp creature. As opposed to everyone sitting around and attacking, people could do different things. Such as: one player could move a cart in the path of the monster. This would allow the archer (if there is one) to safely (or somewhat safely) to shoot his arrows. Also another player could climb up on top of a hut/pole/building and throw a net on the swamp monster to decrease his mobility. And the other players can hack away I hope I was clear in what I was trying to get at.

Also this was touched on somewhat but I''ll mention it again.
It was said that the more a person hacks at a monster then the better he/she gets at hacking. But shouldn''t that be dependent on accuracy? If it''s takes a human 10 swings to a hit an enemy 2 twice, then he shouldn''t get better at swinging until he can get 8 hits out of 10 swings. Correct?

Does the skill value of the weapon also affect the strength and different "skills" (as in special attacks) you have with that weapon?

(Hopefully I''ll be able to expand on this stuff later... bye bye)

quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Also this was touched on somewhat but I'll mention it again.
It was said that the more a person hacks at a monster then the better he/she gets at hacking. But shouldn't that be dependent on accuracy? If it's takes a human 10 swings to a hit an enemy 2 twice, then he shouldn't get better at swinging until he can get 8 hits out of 10 swings. Correct?

Actually, I believe it's been said (somewhere) that we learn more from our failures than our successes (too lazy to google around to see if it's a real quote). When you think about it, practice is practice--if I'm at an archery range, for instance, and all of my shots miss the target, have I wasted my time? What if I've noticed that all of my shots are consistently left of the target--knowing that, I can adjust my style accordingly, and thus become more likely to hit the target next time. It's the same with swinging a sword--even if I'm just waving it in the air, my muscles are becoming used to moving the sword, and so it becomes easier for me to do so, and with more control.

And, of course, there's the game aspect--if I'm just starting out at level 1, with no noticeable sword skill at all, I'm going to miss far more often than if I've nearly mastered it. Should it be harder for a neophyte to show improvement than a near-master? That doesn't make sense. (I'll grant that many games do, in fact, work this way--in Final Fantasy Tactics, for instance, a level 1 knight gets ~15 JP per action, while a level 8 can get ~40; just because it's common doesn't mean it makes sense, though. )

The old game Dungeon Master (way back when) and its sequel, Chaos Strikes Back, had a practice-based experience system--as you walked down the hall, if you took a swing with your sword, it counted as experience, etc. If your barbarian managed to scrape together enough MP to attempt casting a basic light spell, he got magic experience, even if he failed. And so on. Seemed like a good system to me.

-Odd the Hermit

Edit: Turns out that my opening statement is fairly common. No idea who said it originally, still, but there're a lot of references popping up in google.

[edited by - Odd the Hermit on September 3, 2003 10:35:39 AM]

Actually I like that idea.
But allow me to rebut

quote: What if I've noticed that all of my shots are consistently left of the target--knowing that, I can adjust my style accordingly, and thus become more likely to hit the target next time. It's the same with swinging a sword--even if I'm just waving it in the air, my muscles are becoming used to moving the sword, and so it becomes easier for me to do so, and with more control

Well then that's a matter of control and strength. Do you not agree? If my arm are accustomed to swinging a sword, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'll gain accuracy or even that I'm a better sword-user (can't remember correct term, sorry) It just means that when I do hit the big bad monster, he better say a prayer

quote:
Should it be harder for a neophyte to show improvement than a near-master? That doesn't make sense. (I'll grant that many games do, in fact, work this way--in Final Fantasy Tactics, for instance, a level 1 knight gets ~15 JP per action, while a level 8 can get ~40; just because it's common doesn't mean it makes sense, though. )

Granted with a 3D game it's alot easier to be accurate or just plain land a hit than in a game like FFT. But again the JP are kinda screwy so I'll give you that

quote:
a practice-based experience system--as you walked down the hall, if you took a swing with your sword, it counted as experience, etc. If your barbarian managed to scrape together enough MP to attempt casting a basic light spell, he got magic experience, even if he failed. And so on. Seemed like a good system to me.

Again I too agree with you, for the most part. I believe though it should be implemented in a different way. Swinging arbitrary or just using a spell or weapon should increase strength/weapon power, speed, magic skill, and/or magic use.


[edited by - Alpha_ProgDes on September 3, 2003 11:17:01 AM]

quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Also this was touched on somewhat but I''ll mention it again.
It was said that the more a person hacks at a monster then the better he/she gets at hacking. But shouldn''t that be dependent on accuracy? If it''s takes a human 10 swings to a hit an enemy 2 twice, then he shouldn''t get better at swinging until he can get 8 hits out of 10 swings. Correct?

In addition to what Odd said, I''ll take this opportunity to mock the old D&D combat system

The D&D rules state that one turn is approximately one minute in duration. During this time, each character is allowed one action, for example, an attack, or a spell. One attack per minute!?! Give me a break! During a pitch battle you could attack around 10 times in a minute, on top of blocking and dodging.

So what does this mean? It''s an approximation to keep things simple for Pen & Paper gaming. D&D explains its simple system by saying that "out of the multitude of attacks you attempt to make, only one will get through your opponents blocks and potentially penetrate his armour." Your "to hit" roll is not to see whether you actually contact the enemy, but whether you manage to penetrate his armour (find a gap or swing really hard).

In other words, when you roll a "miss" in a RPG, it does NOT mean your character is so incompetent that he actually swung his sword and completely missed his enemy. It means he did not penetrate the armour.

In a CRPG in which every attack and block can be simulated in real time, the D&D model no longer makes sense. You have to rethink your idea of "hit" and "miss" where a hit means you penetrate the armour and a miss means you were blocked (whether by a shield, the weapon, or armour). In either case you learned something and Odd''s comment covers the rest.

----
Darryl Long: Lead Coder The Pythian Project

How about a time/usage mix for skill progression?

For example: The game requires 100 uses of a particular skill to increase it one iteration (e.g. 0.1%). But this increase may only happen over time (e.g. once per 24 hour period). Thus a player who plays for an hour a day progresses similarly to a player who plays for 6 per day. Likewise, skill atrophy occurs if a skill has not been progressed or used in a certain period (e.g. a week).

This could create a series of effects. First, it attracts more new players who might be intimidated by not being able to ''level'' at the same rate as fanatics. Second, a player is not forced to endure hours of endless mindless mouseclicking to advance a character to a ''usable'' level (i.e. midrange, can kill many monsters, must band together with others to slay major monsters). Third, if the game has any socially-influential sources (i.e. team quests, personality development, major plotlines), players might be encouraged to engage in these, since they know that their levelling only occurs for a short time after they start utilizing their skills.

Likewise, this gameplay creates a number of problems. First, powergamers howl at the thought of not being able to spend endless hours levelling a particular skill, or scoff at the idea that newbies advance as well as they do, no matter how much they play beyond a certain threshold. Second, (this gleaned from some time spent administering a UO server), idle players tend to either contribute wholesomely to the gameserver, leave, or explore ways to enjoy the game in means other than those originally intended.



MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.cjb.net

Off topic but I thought in D&D 1 turn = 6 seconds. so 10 turns = 1 min?

quote:
by Odd the Hermit
And, of course, there''s the game aspect--if I''m just starting out at level 1, with no noticeable sword skill at all, I''m going to miss far more often than if I''ve nearly mastered it.

Then that increases sword skill level and strength level. After a certain level you would increase in accuracy (quicker?). Then he would be good at swinging his sword. That''s IMHO, but to each his own.