Skip to content
Woolfe wrote:I also agree with Game_exile a lot of older (and newer) rpgs didn't really make proper use of the computing power available to build really complex relationships. The old ones tended to be due to technical and inexperience issues, the new ones because of "dumbing down" to reach a larger audience.
I would like to see more complex systems that make use of the computers ability to calculate.
I can give you more examples by permutating skill names with other skill names too, jkColor Blotch wrote:You have to admit that the example with punching and plasma rifle you used isn't quite fair either.
If you pump your skill for something, 99 times out of hundred you do this because you actually use that skill and you want it to get better. So traditional system with xp spent of skills isn't anywhere near as irrational as your make it to appear.
Moreover, I find arguments like "it's more realistic and that's why it's better" to be rather bad.
I encourage you to mention some of the mechanical advantages such a system provides.
The example I gave you - JA2, is quite centric, if you've gone to the "tougher" sectors with newbie mercs you'd get all of them killed really fast.From my personal experience the only games that made decent use of it are those in which character development is not centric. It seems to be rather limiting in developing unique specializations and play styles.
I suppose not enough other games implemented that hybrid for me to have a solid idea on what it's good for. I wonder what opinion Wasteland 2 team holds on it nowadays.
suz wrote:I never gave "more realistic" argument. I don't see any mechanical advantages of a point-assign system either, except for legitimized "cheating" to get a skill high by wanting it. I do see a merit in skillup-by-use and levelup for small bonuses system in the way it'd make it'd provide more immersion and make more sense.
suz wrote:The example I gave you - JA2, is quite centric, if you've gone to the "tougher" sectors with newbie mercs you'd get all of them killed really fast.
And what do you mean by "developing" specializations? Do you mean assigning points to unarmed for 2 levelups and suddenly becoming the god of kung fu not moving a finger off the gun trigger all the while?
suz wrote:If you haven't played JA2 and into those kinds of games - I recommend it - playing it with 1-2 mercs is pretty challenging and fun, you're also somewhat time limited.
Color Blotch wrote:Actually you give "move realistic" argument right here.
Not to mention that senseless repetition is rather poor representation of the actual process of training and education.
No, what I mean is that in "learn by use" system all your character development decisions are made in the beginning. This guy is good with guns, you give him a gun, he uses his gun, he becomes better with his gun (replace gun with explosives/lock picking/sneaking etc for all possible variants). That's all there is to it.
On the other hand, when you pick what skill you want to invest your skill points in, you're faced with character building decision on every step of your way. Fallout isn't really a good example since it's not party based. A decent example could be Dragon Age. You could go with 3 warrior 1 mage build. In this case you'd want to maximize damage, so you invest mostly in area of effect moves for your warriors, and then it only makes sense to go with buffing and healing spells for your mage and specialize in spiritual healing. Alternatively you might want to use more tricky 2 mage build. In this case you must do damage with your magic, but since this also means your casters are going to be attacked by mobs quite a bit, it makes sense to make at least one of them an arcane warrior and invest in defensive stuff like force fields and getaway spells. All this is possible because you're allowed to engineer you squad according to your plan.
The only way to get similar functionality with "learn by use" would be giving all the characters all the moves right in the beginning of the game, then force player to use the moves and spells that nearly useless at low skill just in order to grind them. As with your own example, you'd have to use Bozar with low heavy weapons skill, even though you can't make proper use of it, but you have to, or otherwise you won't be able to use heavy weapons at all.
Not to say that this is how it usually handled in "learn by use" systems. Instead you just don't get to choose a lot of anything and you pick a guy who is good with guns, you give him a gun...
I tried to play both JA and JA2 back in the day and I'm not a fan. It was way back before all the patches though, so I don't know how things look at this point. Still...
suz wrote:More immersion and make more sense != more realistic. You can be far from realistic and still have immersion and make sense.
suz wrote:Actually, you don't get to be a better marksman by wanting it, nor you get better at snooker by wanting it.
suz wrote:So basically you're saying you can't stop using a gun and use a medic kit instead with learn by use system? Why not?
You're using a level-by-assigning-points game for a level-by-using system example In fallout the skills were broken in the first place, which you fix later by assigning points to them.
Let's make a proper example: In JA2 you first have to have some aptitude for the field(35 skill minimum), and then learn basics by either "practicing"(slower) or assigning 2+ mercs for "teacher-student"(requires someone higher) relationship for the first few points. And make use of the skill later on to level it further.
suz wrote:If you're not happy with the fact the guy is good with guns you give him something else. Naturally he'll suck at first, probably because you don't suddenly become expert in a field the first time you touch it
1.00 -> 1.13 fixed quite a lot of bugs(including the infamous hanging AI turn), introduced quite a few features and nifty stuff, try it again if you have time
Color Blotch wrote:Yes, but you can read a book.
In all seriousness, for both skills you mentioned, you need to know quite a bit before you can move any further, and without conscious knowledge your progress will plateau fairly soon.
Because there should be more options that there are trainable skills. You want one of your characters to stop using gun, get bandages out of your medic kit and patch someone up. And you want somebody else to take that kit and hit the bad guy on his head. And then you might want to put a brick in that kit to make the hits harder or alternatively learn a way to close it on enemy's head to blind him for 20 in game seconds. And there's only one medical skill to train.
And it's still just one way road.
It still means you're limited in your ability to specialize according to available list of skills. No finer input on your part other than "this one is medic" is possible. Not to mention that a lot of tricks in more complex builds really not supposed to be used all that often. So again you either have to accept the limitation, or you have to use a tactic not for its efficiency, but because it makes more frequent use of that trick (grinding).
All in all, "learn by use" looks as an unnecessarily complication.
There's relatively little theoretical knowledge involved in sharpshooting and snooker, most of it comes out of experience. Come to think of it, I'm having a hard time coming up with a basic survival skill that involves mostly theoretical knowledge and can be done effectively without mostly experience.
Don't understand this part
suz wrote:And it's still just one way road.
What's so bad about it?
You know one of your soldiers is good at shooting but really bad at mechanics(let's assume there's a repair skill for a sec). You want him to get better.
Variant A: Make him practice by repairing, he is now both good at shooting and good at repair
Variant B: Keep shooting until a magical levelup, at which point he gets PhD in physics and can assemble LHC on his knee never touching a screwdriver in his "life". All because you want to use infrequently used trick.
Which is more believable? My sense of "common" says A.
I don't see any complication to it. You use a skill -> you have a chance(or cumulative) to gain a level in a skill. So far it seems that the only "complication" is the fact you can't train "harder" skills by shooting stuff in the face.
I think we can agree to disagree;
It seems your preference for a levelup system with free points is convenience - since it has no reflection of what your characters are doing in game.
My preference of learn by use is because it reflects what happens in game.
Color Blotch wrote:Did you read many sniper manuals?
There's no branching, and the only choice is either you go forward or you don't, and that's not much of choice at all.
And again you just sidestepping word "realism" by using distant synonyms like "believable" or "common sense". None of that matters. Common sense is when all your party dies because of one rusty AT mine that happened to trigger when one of your guys tried to pick a cigarette pack from the ground. Common sense is when any bullet wound in upper torso is 80% lethal. None of that is supposed to be in the game.
As for "magical levelup", you know perfectly well it's not going to work that way. Progressing in any skill is going to take some time with a lot of incremental improvements. If it helps you just imagine that guy read some books during his breaks, which is much more likely to get him PhD in physics than touching screwdriver.
The complication is that you can't just play efficiently. You now have to play to pump your skills.
It simply that I like my characters to do the best they can with what they have instead of worrying of whether it's going to help them get more skill points at something. Lets me focus on what matters.
suz wrote:If you want to branch you just use something else, what's so difficult to understand?
A mine blowing up kills your party is believable, "common" sense and realistic.
A mine blowing up doesn't kill your party is believable, not common sense and unrealistic - to make it common sense you introduce PA into the game.
A mine suddenly starting spewing rainbows and butterflies is neither of those things.
It worked that way in fallout, which we discussed for previous examples of magical levelup system.
Well, you want to use your highest skills to "play efficiently" while using them to "pump" your lower skills because it's convenient
Color Blotch wrote:Are you familiar with skill trees?
Even in fallout you wouldn't shoot from 0 to 100 in one level up.
Yes, I'm guilty of wishing that experience system was made to serve a function for me as I play, not me serving a function for experience system as it plays.
suz wrote:Surely you mean perks? What about them? You can't take those you want without having the skill for them?
suz wrote:Right, it's two levels in mediocre case, or three in almost-worst.
suz wrote:QED - You want to eat the cake and have it too then
While it may be convenient and nice to suddenly have some skill spiked to expert levels, it makes no sense since you know that particular ranger has done nothing related to that skill. Of course it's personal preference.
suz wrote:Hybrid system sounds fun, but if each levelup is so complex it reaches NWN multiclasses complexity, rinse repeat for 4 or 7 rangers then it'd suck(for me).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest