Levels!

[Woolfe]

TL:DR



I have said this before.

I would like to see a system that has both.

In real life we have Theory and Practical. I always like the idea of practicing till you got really good at something, but without doing some theory work, you'll never get past a certain point.

So Theory is booklearning and just thinking(gaining levels) about the skill. Whereas Practical is of course the act of doing it.

It doesn't really work in a 1-20 system, so my theory was a 1-100 system akin to fallout.
So you put 1 point in the skill at the start, this is the theory element, it first teaches you How to do something. Then you put in 9 points of practical. So for something like Medic, each time you heal someone, you have a chance of gaining a point in the skill.
But once you hit 10 points, you need to put in some theory to improve further, before you will get any more practical experience.

You would need to do a little tweaking to the idea, maybe allowing you to stock up the theory a little, or to simply reduce the chance of the improving the skill in practice as you get higher. But I think the concept is sound and could work quite well.

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.

[Gumpo]

I really like Woolfe's idea.

That said, i think X-Com Apocalypse did leveling really well. They dealt with a larger squad, but it was just stats that levelled by use. After a combat encounter was over, depending on what the units did in combat changed their stats a bit. Since X-Com was way more strategy than RPG, this system as it is in X-Com wouldnt work for Wasteland 2, but i think its also a really good system to draw inspiration from.

[Color Blotch]

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 don't think computing power was any kind of obstacle ever since i80286 processors became a norm on PC. Processing RPG rules isn't like resolving Navier–Stokes equations, it's just a set of straightforward additions, subtractions, comparisons, and condition checking. Even computers of 20 years ago could do tens of millions of such operations per second.

If there is a kind of computing power limitation in all this, it's in game designer's brain. Creating a comprehensive set of rules that makes sense, is balanced, scales for different game situations and doesn't fall apart when pushed to its limits is not a simple thing to do. And as the system grows larger, accounting for all possible side effects becomes more and more difficult. Which is why game designs that stood the test of time are usually fairly clear and straightforward.

[suz]

You have to admit that the example with punching and plasma rifle you used isn't quite fair either.

I can give you more examples by permutating skill names with other skill names too, jk

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.

If we take fallout as example - That(actually using the skill) happened for about the first 4-5 levels until you finished with your "must have" skills(small guns, lockpick etc) which you used cause you had no choice, and afterwards it was all about pumping skill points for free bonuses bonuses - science, gambling etc or before using the skill - because skills below ~70 were broken.
Did you ever find yourself shooting bozar before pumping big guns to at least 50? I think not.

Moreover, I find arguments like "it's more realistic and that's why it's better" to be rather bad.
<snip>
I encourage you to mention some of the mechanical advantages such a system provides.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

[Fuzi0n]

[suz]

stuff

You're really good at reading... Just kidding

[Fuzi0n]

[Color Blotch]

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.

Actually you give "move realistic" argument right here. What is "provide more immersion and make more sense" in this context other than being "more like in life". There is no cheating for as long as you stay within rules. If rules award you with skill points and you get to distribute them as you like then that's how the game is played.

Not to mention that senseless repetition is rather poor representation of the actual process of training and education.

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?

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...

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.

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]

Actually you give "move realistic" argument right here.

More immersion and make more sense != more realistic. You can be far from realistic and still have immersion and make sense.

Not to mention that senseless repetition is rather poor representation of the actual process of training and education.

Actually, you don't get to be a better marksman by wanting it, nor you get better at snooker by wanting it.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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

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...

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]

More immersion and make more sense != more realistic. You can be far from realistic and still have immersion and make sense.

Then it just boils down to personal preference. I never felt it having any effect on immersion, and pure game mechanics wise the traditional xp system makes more sense to me. It certainly much easier to balance and predict for game developer.

Actually, you don't get to be a better marksman by wanting it, nor you get better at snooker by wanting it.

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.

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?

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.

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.

And it's still just one way road.

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

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. It seems like trying to play chess with a gigantic 10 meters long robotic hand. And I just don't understand why can't you just move the pieces with your hand.

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

One of these days...

[suz]

Yes, but you can read a book.

I can become world champion in biathlon by reading a book? I think I know my next career choice

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.

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.

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.

Don't understand this part

And it's still just one way road.

What's so bad about it?

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).

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.

All in all, "learn by use" looks as an unnecessarily complication.

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]

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.

Did you read many sniper manuals? You really think people learn proper form, how to measure size of the target and distance to it according to surrounding objects, leading in the shot considering both speed and bearing of the target, all buy just pulling the trigger? You need to know what you doing. Not all of that will come from a book, but none of that will come through senseless repetition. Repeating something without knowing what you're doing is the best way to get very persistent bad habits and not much else.

Don't understand this part

That's part joke, part illustration that you can't quite cover all the possible character progression routes with just one number assigned to one skill.

And it's still just one way road.

What's so bad about it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

The complication is that you can't just play efficiently. You now have to play to pump your skills.

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.

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.

[Fuzi0n]

[suz]

Did you read many sniper manuals?

Bootcamp covers pretty much everything you listed.

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.

If you want to branch you just use something else, what's so difficult to understand?

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.

A mine blowing up kills your party is believable, "common" sense and realistic.
A mine blowing up doesn't kill your party is not believable, not common sense and unrealistic - to make it common sense and believable you introduce PA into the game - and making the game further unrealistic.
A mine suddenly starting spewing rainbows and butterflies is neither of those things.

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.

It worked that way in fallout, which we discussed for previous examples of magical levelup system.

The complication is that you can't just play efficiently. You now have to play to pump your skills.
<cut>
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.

Well, you want to use your highest skills to "play efficiently" while using them to "pump" your lower skills because it's convenient

[Fuzi0n]

[Color Blotch]

If you want to branch you just use something else, what's so difficult to understand?

Are you familiar with skill trees?

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.

Err... No. There will simply be no rusty mines that kill your entire party in this game. Mainly because it's pretty stupid thing to have in a computer game. Even though mines and IED would most likely be one of the leading sources of human casualties, and incorporating them into the game would without doubt make it more "believable", it would also make for a horrible design decision. Which is why I'm not very keen towards "believable", "common sense" or "realistic" as far as gaming goes.

It worked that way in fallout, which we discussed for previous examples of magical levelup system.

Even in fallout you wouldn't shoot from 0 to 100 in one level up.

Well, you want to use your highest skills to "play efficiently" while using them to "pump" your lower skills because it's convenient

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.

[Fuzi0n]

I just noticed that I was totally out of context (I had to read every post again from the beginning to realize this) and therefore misunderstood what was going on.

Please continue suz and blotch

[suz]

Are you familiar with skill trees?

Surely you mean perks? What about them? You can't take those you want without having the skill for them?

Even in fallout you wouldn't shoot from 0 to 100 in one level up.

Right, it's two levels in mediocre case, or three in almost-worst.

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.

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.

[Color Blotch]

Surely you mean perks? What about them? You can't take those you want without having the skill for them?

Skill/Talent tree is an example of skill branching. You don't "just use something else" with skill trees, because things are interconnected, one comes after the other. Skill tree is the proper representation of choice in character development. You have to decide in what route you want to invest and skip on the rest, shaping up and fine-tuning your specialization in the process.

There's no good way to make learn-by-doing system work with branching. "Perks" is how the half-assed implementation in Skyrim was called. It combines everything that is "unrealistic" with traditional xp systems and adds all the hoops of learn-by-doing grinding. Worst of both worlds.

So as I said, learn-by-doing works pretty well in games revolving around tactical gameplay and not a lot of detailed character development (like X-COM or even JA). Can't have it if character development is your focus.

Right, it's two levels in mediocre case, or three in almost-worst.

So make it ten and that should fix it?

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.

But now you need ten steps to get there. There are no sudden spikes, problem solved.

[Drool]

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).

Level ups weren't especially complex. Or at least no more complex than any other leveling system. Granted, I don't know how they'll do it in WL2, but in one, levels were pretty straight forward:

1) Radio in
2) Get promoted; yay!
3) Automatically get 2 points added to MAXCON
4) Get 2 points to assign as you with across your Attributes (including MAXCON)
5) If you added points to IQ, you also gained Skill Points which could be used the next time you went to a library
6) If not, you're done!

At the Library, you were given a list of skills. Generally, it included all skills you had sufficient IQ for, but some skills could only be learned in certain places (eg: you could only learn Helicopter Pilot in the Helicopter Training Pod). There were also some libraries that only taught high level skills (eg: in the Citadel, you could learn Doctor, Energy Weapons, Toaster Repair and Electronics only). Anyway, you were given the list of skills with your current skill level slotted in and the cost to improve, as well as a display of how many Skill Points you had. If you had enough for the specific skill, you could buy it. If not, wait for next level and buy more IQ.

It was a pretty simple system (lengthy to explain, but easy to grasp). It also, in its own way, paid homage to realism. You could buy level 1 in a skill pretty easily. Doctor, for instance, took 3 skill points. However, if you wanted to buy level 2, that was a lot more expensive: 6 points. Level 3? Now you're wasting skill points as that cost 12. Buying from level 1 to level 3 all at once would be a crippling 21 points; more than some characters would ever see during a whole game. Thus we have our nod to realism: you can learn the basics (level 1) from a book (by spending Skill Points) but you need to actually use the skill to obtain true mastery. The doubling point cost meant that the first level or two was easy to get, but higher levels needed to be trained outside of the library.

Honestly, the most complicated part was figuring out where to add points once you'd bought all the skills you needed, but that happens regardless of how you handle leveling.