The Little Things

[Woolfe]

My biggest concern would be that some/many players would use the mechanic as a way to "grind" PC Skills to assure that each PC has the same max value for each Skill value. I would place limits such as a PC can only teach one of his Skills after he has reached ____ level in a Skill, and then he could only train another PC to improve ONE level in that Skill. That would be enough to assure that each PC has at least ONE in every available Skill. (Which is to my mind, reasonable.)

I like the idea of cross-training but I'd make it so players still have to spend a skill point to get that initial 1 in a skill to start training. It could even be where characters could train that initial point from a more skilled team member so you don't have to take a trip to a library even. I would make it so automatic increases without use of the skill could only happen up to half of the "teacher's" skill. So character A has 1 lockpick. Character B has 6 lockpick. Character A will eventually hit 3 and will then need to use the skill to continue advancing or Character B would need to get to 8.

Definately, I wouldn't expect this to be a "train anyone" type skill, my assumption would be that it is incremental only.

[DarkTwinkie]

Or you could have the best haggler train other team member, which is the a more difficult skill check, but the trained members learn something.

Very interesting idea. Mind if I steal this?

[ffordesoon]

Or you could have the best haggler train other team member, which is the a more difficult skill check, but the trained members learn something.

Very interesting idea. Mind if I steal this?

I dunno about him, but I certainly don't.

[Woolfe]

Or you could have the best haggler train other team member, which is the a more difficult skill check, but the trained members learn something.

Very interesting idea. Mind if I steal this?

I dunno about him, but I certainly don't.

Indeed I believe that is the point our crazed ramblings

[CaptainPatch]

Or you could have the best haggler train other team member, which is the a more difficult skill check, but the trained members learn something.

Very interesting idea. Mind if I steal this?

Actually that's Ken's comment that you are highlighting. It was in my post that I was replying to, which is how it ended up in _my_ post. Anyway, I would wager that Ken wouldn't object either.

[Ken]

Or you could have the best haggler train other team member, which is the a more difficult skill check, but the trained members learn something.

Very interesting idea. Mind if I steal this? ;)

Actually that's Ken's comment that you are highlighting. It was in my post that I was replying to, which is how it ended up in _my_ post. Anyway, I would wager that Ken wouldn't object either. :P

Nope, go ahead. Steal away, in fact you can consider any idea I post in the forums to be free to steal. Honestly I liked the collaboration and practice options better than training, but whatever floats your boat.

[Zombra]

I'm not jazzed on the idea of party cross-training. Kinda has the wrong flavor; dilutes the "team of specialists" feel.

Collaboration for two characters with the same skill would be neat, though. Invest skill points on two characters and you should see a synergistic return.

[Lucius]

Collaboration for two characters with the same skill would be neat, though. Invest skill points on two characters and you should see a synergistic return.

I would bet this is the direction they take with this, otherwise at the end of the game your whole team will all be exactly the same with all the same skills.

[CaptainPatch]

I'm not jazzed on the idea of party cross-training. Kinda has the wrong flavor; dilutes the "team of specialists" feel.

You would still have your Specialists. The cross-trainer wouldn't be able to train someone up to his level. (His level -1, MAX, if even that much.) But if the party ever fragments, each fragment would take with it at least some of the overall party's full spectrum of Skills. (Which is pretty much the whole point of cross-training in the first place.)

[Badunius]

Do not want to overcomplicate things, but maybe cross training should reduce skill up cost, instead of giving free skill points? Or, maybe just increase skill level for entire party as long as PC/NPC is part of group.

[Zombra]

I'm not jazzed on the idea of party cross-training. Kinda has the wrong flavor; dilutes the "team of specialists" feel.

You would still have your Specialists. The cross-trainer wouldn't be able to train someone up to his level. (His level -1, MAX, if even that much.) But if the party ever fragments, each fragment would take with it at least some of the overall party's full spectrum of Skills. (Which is pretty much the whole point of cross-training in the first place.)

I guess. I just think it's more interesting to see "A locked door! If only Thrasher were here!" instead of "A locked door! Well, we don't need Thrasher, I can probably do it ..."

[ButchinMelancholy]

Something like a progression bonus would indeed be very interesting.
I'm thinking about that: other teammates would learn x% faster during a certain amount of time (a day?)* after their comrade would have teach them a thing or two on the subject (which takes a bit of time -kind of black screen-hours skipped in the game way-). But this would probably be limited by one lesson at a time for each character (they couldn't properly benefit from it if different lessons would mix up in their head , and the master could only focus on one person at a time), and the "teacher" would not be able/disposed to do that twelve time a day either. Also, during that bonus time, the progression of the other skills would be slightly diminished (perhaps just some, like the ones this character is not so good at or the contrary, or probably more relevant, the ones that are affected by any mean by that skill -because they require the same capabilities thus to invest those more particularly in that way would lessen the other, or because they are linked together...-) because the character would be entirely focused on this one, which would overall be profitable.

*I imagine that there could be some bonus available a way or another (in some particular conditions perhaps) to increase that bonus percentage or lengthen that time sometimes, or the contrary...

[Badunius]

Something like a progression bonus would indeed be very interesting.
I'm thinking about that: other teammates would learn x% faster during a certain amount of time (a day?)

or they could have chance to upgrade their skill when somebody performs a skill check (higher skill difference will give higher chance)

[ButchinMelancholy]

Could you explain a bit more please?

[Badunius]

well if we have three characters A, B and C with... ummm... first aid skills 10, 3, 8
and one of them, lets say, A performs a first aid skill check (bandaging someone for example)
then B will have 1 - 1 / (10 - 3) = 85% chance to increase FA skill
and C will have only 1 - 1 / (10 - 8) = 50% chance
well, numbers should be adjusted certainly, and may be some other factors shoud be applied.

[ButchinMelancholy]

Interesting, the concept then is that the other teammates would learn when seeing their comrades practice. That would do it pretty well too.

[Ken]

well if we have three characters A, B and C with... ummm... first aid skills 10, 3, 8
and one of them, lets say, A performs a first aid skill check (bandaging someone for example)
then B will have 1 - 1 / (10 - 3) = 85% chance to increase FA skill
and C will have only 1 - 1 / (10 - 8) = 50% chance
well, numbers should be adjusted certainly, and may be some other factors shoud be applied.

This is exactly what I was thinking. These are modes done during a normal skill check, not some separate training mode.

[ffordesoon]

I can't recall if anyone's mentioned this already or not, but I just wrote a post in the "Control Options" thread that I think is worth reposting here. So:

Also, somewhat on this same topic, please make sure input commands are responsive. I really hate it in games where I have to click something several times before the game realizes I click. Even worse is when I have to press "i" over and over again to open my inventory because the game didn't recognize the input the first time.

Heh. And then when the buffer catches up, it opens and closes 3 times in rapid succession.

OH GOD THIS THIS A THOUSAND TIMES THIS

Fable II was the worst in this regard. I should not have to wait one full second for a menu to appear, then wait for the motherfucker to animate like some janky-ass Flash menu every fucking time I tell it to move to the next option. I genuinely cannot believe I made it through that game without having a brain aneurysm.

And then, of course, Molyneux learned completely the wrong lesson - it's not that people hate menus, Peter. It's that people hate your menus, because they are fucking awful menus.

If there's one thing W2 should learn from Diablo 3, it's how responsive every menu in the game should be. No animations, nothing cute, no click-load-oh-God-hurry-up-you-piece-of-shit-finally-menu. Click, menu, done. Like fucking lightning, it should be. If it takes longer to load the menu than it does to fire a gun in Serious Sam, it's too fucking slow.

[DarkTwinkie]

Nope, go ahead. Steal away, in fact you can consider any idea I post in the forums to be free to steal. Honestly I liked the collaboration and practice options better than training, but whatever floats your boat.

Sorry for the incorrect reference. Great idea, Ken!