Another MMORPG I'd like to see...
Michael Lyons
and would be thrilled if Bethesda was working on something like this.
Lots of people have commented on how Morrowind was like a single player
MMORPG and I'd agree with that characterization.
The rich history and lands of The Elder Scrolls would make a perfect
setting for an MMORPG I think. Does anyone agree?
Imagine the world of Morrowind populated by real people! How cool would
that be?
Briarroot
The world of Tamriel certainly possesses enough back story and
is large enough, or could be made large enough, to make a viable
world for an MMORPG. The hard part, of course, is constructing
the program to hold the story, but I wouldn't be surprised if the
powers-that-be at Bethesda are considering the idea.
Rod
like the Internet companies boom of a few years ago... and then their
demise 1 year later. So many MMORPGs are coming out or are in
development that they will cannibalize each other. These things need
a critical number of people to subscribe for it to break even, and
with so many options, many will not reach that number... and
disappear. Only EQ2 is a safe bet. WoW may work too. Lineage 2 if
it grabs the asian market. All the rest are doubtful. Ask Microsoft
and Mythica developers.
Ashkah
I would love this, but knowing Bethesda they would have to do ALL of
Tamriel - a HUGE undertaking. VVardenfell is just 40% of Morrowind.
Morrowind is maybe 5% of Tamriel. And you know it takes a good hour to
walk from one side of VVardenfell to the other. I can't even imagine
walking from Vivec to Daggerfall!
I would love the skills based system rather than levels/classes. True
there are levels in elder scrolls, but they aren't as important as
your skills.
Nostromo
>I would love the skills based system rather than levels/classes. True
>there are levels in elder scrolls, but they aren't as important as
>your skills.
Yeah, so long as it's *anything* but that abortion of a skill system
Bethesda should've dropped long, long ago...*sigh*...no control, no
predictability, no sense.
--
Replace 'spamfree' with ('k__umcgl_' + ascii 123456789) to reply via email.
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>On 19 Feb 2004 11:40:31 -0800, ash...@yahoo.com (Ashkah) wrote:
>
>>I would love the skills based system rather than levels/classes. True
>>there are levels in elder scrolls, but they aren't as important as
>>your skills.
>
>Yeah, so long as it's *anything* but that abortion of a skill system
>Bethesda should've dropped long, long ago...*sigh*...no control, no
>predictability, no sense.
Hunh? A system where you get better at things you practice is
uncontrolled, unpredictable and makes no sense?
I'd have said those descriptions went for most of the other systems,
kill 10 rats with your sword, level up and put skill points in thievery,
or stealth or ...
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Dan S.
> Another MMORPG? Well, yeah. I'd love to see, "The Elder Scrolls Online"
> and would be thrilled if Bethesda was working on something like this.
> Lots of people have commented on how Morrowind was like a single player
> MMORPG and I'd agree with that characterization.
>
If you mean the NPC's had no personality and crappy dialogue then I
certainly agree.
Nostromo
>Nostromo <nost...@spamfree.net.au> looked up from reading the entrails
>of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>On 19 Feb 2004 11:40:31 -0800, ash...@yahoo.com (Ashkah) wrote:
>>
>>>I would love the skills based system rather than levels/classes. True
>>>there are levels in elder scrolls, but they aren't as important as
>>>your skills.
>>
>>Yeah, so long as it's *anything* but that abortion of a skill system
>>Bethesda should've dropped long, long ago...*sigh*...no control, no
>>predictability, no sense.
>
>Hunh? A system where you get better at things you practice is
>uncontrolled, unpredictable and makes no sense?
>
>I'd have said those descriptions went for most of the other systems,
>kill 10 rats with your sword, level up and put skill points in thievery,
>or stealth or ...
I didnt say illogical did I? The system simply doesn't support the level of
control that comes from most rpging, which, for better or worse, allows for
micro-management & distribution of points & *choice*. I don't want to have
to jump up & down & around like an idiot for hours just to get an extra
'level' in acrobatics. Sure, it's more of a simulation of RL (one does have
to practice to get better at things), but it's just no *fun* most of the
time. Unpredictable because you can never tell how individual actions will
increase your skill - you just have to keep bangin your head on a brick wall
until your idiocy skill improves *sigh*. It would be ok if all the skills
were proportionally useful to, well their use, but they're not, not by a
country mile - ergo the game balance is fubared. And the whole major, minor,
misc skill system IS an abortion of a system without any direct player
control, especially with how it ties into the char levels.
Bateau
." ". Thu, 19 Feb 2004 09:53:43 -0500
| . ` ` | in
\( )/ comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,
\)__. _._(/ Michael Lyons
// >..< \\ spoke
|__.' vv '.__/ 10
l'''"''l lines
\_ _/ to
_ )--( _ the
| '--.__)--(_.--' | great
\ |`----''----'| / undead
|| `-' '--' || skeleton
|| `--' '--' || god
|l `--'--'--' |l of
|__|`--' `--'|__| giant
| | )-( | | ascii
|| )-( \|| who
|| __ )_( __ \\ replied...
||' `- -' \ \\
||\_ `-' _/ |_\
/_\ _)J-._.-L( /`-\
|`- I_)O /\ O( `--l\\\|
||||( `-' `-') .-' |||
\\\ \ / / ///
\ \ / /
\ \ / /
/ \ / \
|_()I()._|
\ /\ /
| / \ |
| | \ \
| | \ \
| | \ \
| |-nabis\ \_
| | /-._\
|.-.\ //.-._)
\\\\ ///
\\\\-'''
``''
>Another MMORPG? Well, yeah. I'd love to see, "The Elder Scrolls Online"
>and would be thrilled if Bethesda was working on something like this.
>Lots of people have commented on how Morrowind was like a single player
>MMORPG and I'd agree with that characterization.
Pointless quests and levelling with no meta gameplay?
>The rich history and lands of The Elder Scrolls would make a perfect
>setting for an MMORPG I think. Does anyone agree?
Setting and history is irrelevant to MMORPGs.
>Imagine the world of Morrowind populated by real people! How cool would
>that be?
About as lame as it already is.
--
.-'`-.
/ | | \
/ | | \
|___|_|__ |
||<o>| <o>`|
|| J_ )|
`|`-'__`-'|/
| `--' |
.-| |_
.-' \ / | |`-.
.-' `. /| | \
/ ````' | | \
|_____ | | L
.-' ___ `-. F F | | ||`-.___
.'.-' | `-. `. J J / | || _.>
/ /| | |`. \ | | |/ | ||_.-'
/ / | | | `. `. F F | |==============================
J / | | | \ L J J | | `:::::::. `:::::::.
FJ | | | |L J/ / | \ :::::::. :::::::\
J |() | () | () | () | J L/ | | ::::::: :::::::L
| F | .-'_ \ | | LJ | / L :::::::: :::::::J
| L | / \\ | | | L | | :::::::: ::::::::L
| L || ):|| | | | /| L :::::::: ::::::::|
J | ||:._.'::|| | | |----' | | :::::::: ::::::::| .---.
J | |J:::::::|| | | | _/\ | :::::::: ::::::::| /(@ o`.
LJ | \:::::/ | | | |---'\ | | :::::::: ::::::::| | /^^^
J L | `-:-' | | | F | \ | J :::::::: ::::::::| \ . \vvv
LJ()| () | () | () | F F | \ \--._L :::::::: ::::::::| \ `--'
J \ | | | | J J \ | | :::::::: ::::::::| \ `.
\ \| | | | / / | | | :::::::: ::::::::| L \
\ \ | | |/ /| | | .-'| :::::::: ::::::::| | \
`.`. | | .'.' | | |/ /`L :::::::: ::::::::| | L
| `.`-.____|.-'.-' | | | <`. \ :::::::: ::::::::| | |
| | `-.______.-' | \| |_`::\ `. :::::::: ::::::::| F |
| J\ | | | | /: \::. \:::::::: ::::::::F / |
| L\|--| | _.--|:: `::\ `.:::::: .:::::::J / F
J J |\\|-.____ |__.-' |: \::. \:::: ::::::::F .' J
L \| >|| `--' J |' .`::\ `.:' .::::::::/ .' F
J |//JJ | L |---. .--\::. \---. .---. <---< J
L |< |J |\=/| ( _ \=/ _ `::\ `. \=/ _ \=/ _ \ /
J |\\|J | | / )_) | (_) \::. \ | (_) | (_) | /
\ |--|J |//\\ / //\ //`::\ `./\ //\ / .'
\| |L ` )/ )` `' '|`---// `---// `\::. \ `---// `---' .'
VK________| L_\ ' /___/ ' | |___//______//_____`::\ |___//_________.'_________
F F J`` -'| | | | | \:_|
`-' | "" | J ` |
| | L | |\ |\ /| /| |\ /|
| | \ | | \ | \ // // | \ || |\
J | `. | ||\\ ||\\ // // ||\\ || ||
L F )`---\ || >> || \\ / | << || \\ || ||
| J / `. ||// || || //|| \\ || || || ||
J J ( `-. |// | \ || |/ || \\ | \ || || ||
`-.__/ `---. `. |<< ||\\|| || >> ||\\|| || ||
| J `. ) ||\\ || \ | || // || \ | || ||
/ | `-----' || >> || || || // || || \\ ||
/ F ||// || || || << || || \\||
J J | / |/ || |/ \\ |/ || \ |
J | |/ \| \| \| \|
`-.-' K I N G O F T H E M O N S T E R S
Xocyll
It provides better control than the average ones.
If you want to be good at something, you'll have to work at that skill
instead of just stabbing rats with your dagger.
A skill system where you "level" by killing and get to boost any skill
at all is fundamentally broken.
Bethesda got it right (so did Betrayal at Krondor and Ultima Online.)
As for the major/minor/misc system it's a bit clumsy, but again, it fits
the world and reality - some things you are better at and some things
you have only the slightest ability in.
Frankly i'd prefer all rpgs to use a "use based" system instead of the
usual "kill 10 rats with a dagger, get better at using a longsword, kill
20 more rats, get better at lockpicking".
Nostromo
I'd agree there...to a point. I'd prefer to see something like the SPECIAL
system (where most abilities are used, either actively or passively & are
actually *useful*) to automatically increase your abilities, either by
fractions or whole percents. Though the developers have to allow for people
who want to progress in some things more than others without explicitly
banging-head-on-wall to increase banging-head-on-wall skills. E.g., if I
wanted to increase my stealth skill, I would just toggle stealth mode & go
about my business, which might be mutually exclusive to the traps or search
skills which would require a different 'passive' toggle. What I'm getting
at, I guess, is that MW seemed to have way too many 'active' skills to ever
get more than 2 or 3 to a higher level, which doesn't sit well with me & the
whole 'hero of the land' roleplaying scenario. If I want to play common
folk, I'll stick to real life; in a crpg I should be better than that (in
some even super-human ala BG1/2) & be able to progress at an (almost)
super-human level...
Damien Neil
<Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
> It provides better control than the average ones.
> If you want to be good at something, you'll have to work at that skill
> instead of just stabbing rats with your dagger.
However, it isn't fun at all. For me, at least.
Want to be good at sneaking? Stand somewhere where you can be seen,
put a weight on the sneak key, and let the computer sit there
overnight. Congratulations, you've got 100 stealth. This is
entertaining? The one thing you can say for experience point based
systems (and good ones hand out XP for all tasks, not just
rat-stabbing) is that they let you advance as a result of entertaining
activities, not boring ones.
Worse, until you raise your sneak skill either by spending an hour or
two with the sneak key held down or by dumping a lot of gold at a
trainer, it isn't usable--a starting thief character can't hide worth a
damn.
Compounding the problem are the attribute multipliers, which encourage
you to raise different skills in an intricrate dance to optimize your
attribute gain per level. "Oops, that's my fourth point in long
blade--better switch to another weapon until I can rest and gain a
level."
Sure, you can ignore all this--but then, what's the *point* of it? You
may as well just hand out random attribute bonuses at each level.
> As for the major/minor/misc system it's a bit clumsy, but again, it fits
> the world and reality - some things you are better at and some things
> you have only the slightest ability in.
Of course, you'll end up good at acrobatics whether or not you pick it
as a major, while you'll only end up good at enchantment if you pick it
as a major and then spend endless hours and gold practicing it--or just
leave it as a misc skill and spend some gold on it.
> Frankly i'd prefer all rpgs to use a "use based" system instead of the
> usual "kill 10 rats with a dagger, get better at using a longsword, kill
> 20 more rats, get better at lockpicking".
I don't have anything against use-based systems. The one in Morrowind
is completely broken, however. It starts you out with no useful
abilities in many skills, making them virtually impossible to advance
without either spending money on training ("loot 10 tombs, buy an
advance in longsword, loot 20 more tombs, buy an advance in
lockpicking") or sitting in a room for an hour with the "sneak" key
held down. It makes other skills almost impossible NOT to advance. It
then encourages ridiculous manipulation of skills, advancing some and
not others, to optimize attribute increases. And finally, it
eventually makes every character into a godlike killing machine,
capable of wading unscathed through oceans of foes.
- Damien
Nostromo
I wish I could've put it this succinctly! ;-) This is spot on Damien -
anyone arguing with this is a MW junkie & needs to have a reality check to
let the 'scales fall from their eyes'. It *really* is an old, tired, bent &
broken system. Sure, perhaps D20 or SPECIAL aren't perfect, but by GOD
they're F-U-N!!! >8^D
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:17:50 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
I guess it just depends on play style. I don't think I ever just sat
somewhere trying to increase a skill. I did work up spell schools in
Daggerfall with the ubiquitous "rent room in Inn and fire weak spells at
wall" routine.
In Morrowind I just used skills to increase them, and if they were so
low as to be almost unusable, i'd buy a little training to get them to
minimum usable level first.
IE trying to fight something using a weapon you have 2% skill in isn't
going to go well since you'll miss 98% of the time.
That too seemed realistic, since no-one knows most things inherently,
you need some training.
Once a skill was at 15% or so it was usable if not exactly great.
Yes I did spend a lot of time running and jumping, but that was just
mostly because i'm impatient and the run+jump combo is the fastest way
to cover ground between towns (plus you can never have too much jumping
ability if you can't levitate.)
With the Marksman character I just shot at things, and yes I did go
through an astounding amount of arrows and bolts to kill some things due
to low skill. I routinely carried several hundred bolts when that
character was at higher levels.
You _can_ do the "book on stealth key" overnight thing, but you can
boost stealth just as easily by just trying to sneak as you walk through
town.
Ditto security - I just lockpicked/probed everything that could be.
Same with armoring - you find so many hammers I'd just try to repair
captured items until I had decent enough skill and i'd repair my stuff
after every fight.
You don't _have_ to bang your head on the wall.
Xocyll
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>In article <mcci30lc5c8pkukkn...@4ax.com>, Xocyll
><Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>> It provides better control than the average ones.
>> If you want to be good at something, you'll have to work at that skill
>> instead of just stabbing rats with your dagger.
>
>However, it isn't fun at all. For me, at least.
>
>Want to be good at sneaking? Stand somewhere where you can be seen,
>put a weight on the sneak key, and let the computer sit there
>overnight. Congratulations, you've got 100 stealth. This is
>entertaining? The one thing you can say for experience point based
>systems (and good ones hand out XP for all tasks, not just
>rat-stabbing) is that they let you advance as a result of entertaining
>activities, not boring ones.
No this is you doing the equivalent of cheating.
Walking around in town in "stealth" will boost the skill easily enough
without cheating.
>Worse, until you raise your sneak skill either by spending an hour or
>two with the sneak key held down or by dumping a lot of gold at a
>trainer, it isn't usable--a starting thief character can't hide worth a
>damn.
What starting character in any system is going to be particularly
skilled in anything?
>Compounding the problem are the attribute multipliers, which encourage
>you to raise different skills in an intricrate dance to optimize your
>attribute gain per level. "Oops, that's my fourth point in long
>blade--better switch to another weapon until I can rest and gain a
>level."
You don't _have_ to use the multipliers.
I don't, but I could care less about the standard min-maxers mentality.
>Sure, you can ignore all this--but then, what's the *point* of it? You
>may as well just hand out random attribute bonuses at each level.
The point is that if your character _happens_ to be using skills that
have a certain synergy, they'll get a bonus.
Some people saw this and decided that every level up have the maximum
gain.
People like this aren't just playing for "fun" anymore.
>> As for the major/minor/misc system it's a bit clumsy, but again, it fits
>> the world and reality - some things you are better at and some things
>> you have only the slightest ability in.
>
>Of course, you'll end up good at acrobatics whether or not you pick it
>as a major, while you'll only end up good at enchantment if you pick it
>as a major and then spend endless hours and gold practicing it--or just
>leave it as a misc skill and spend some gold on it.
You will only if you jump or fall from heights.
If you don't jump or fall, your acrobatics won't go up at all.
I've boosted misc skills without buying training, just by using them.
Yeah it takes longer, but so what, it's a skill my character ISN'T
focused on.
Major skills = your "job" skills.
Minor skills = your "hobby" skills.
Misc skills = stuff you've heard about or seen someone else do.
Never changed a tire in your life,but you've seen it done - you have
tire changing as a misc skill.
You probably could change the tire _eventually_, but it would take you a
lot longer and you might totally fuck up the tire.
Nobody is good at everything.
Hand a guitar to someone whose never even seen one - he's going to sound
pretty awful, but assuming he has any talent at all, eventually he could
get good at it.
He'd get better faster if he had music books and/or a tutor though.
>> Frankly i'd prefer all rpgs to use a "use based" system instead of the
>> usual "kill 10 rats with a dagger, get better at using a longsword, kill
>> 20 more rats, get better at lockpicking".
>
>I don't have anything against use-based systems. The one in Morrowind
>is completely broken, however. It starts you out with no useful
>abilities in many skills, making them virtually impossible to advance
>without either spending money on training ("loot 10 tombs, buy an
>advance in longsword, loot 20 more tombs, buy an advance in
>lockpicking") or sitting in a room for an hour with the "sneak" key
>held down. It makes other skills almost impossible NOT to advance. It
>then encourages ridiculous manipulation of skills, advancing some and
>not others, to optimize attribute increases. And finally, it
>eventually makes every character into a godlike killing machine,
>capable of wading unscathed through oceans of foes.
Well I can't disagree with _YOUR_ experience with the game, but it's not
the same as mine or that of many other people.
You don't have to min-max, and you can progress without buying training
in anything, it's just going to take longer.
Surprise, surprise, just like reality.
Your problem seems to be that you can't NOT manipulate the game to boost
your ability.
Normal characters that don't min/mix, don't go for maximum stat boosts,
don't get max skill in everything via training and key holding, don't
become virtual gods striding through the hordes.
YOU made your gameplay experience, and from the sounds of it, YOU ruined
YOUR experience by YOUR choice to min/max, key-hold and so one.
I didn't do those things, I just played the game and had fun and my
characters reflect that.
Bethesda just gave you a system. If you choose to abuse the system you
may ruin your fun, but the system doesn't make you abuse it, that's YOUR
choice.
Sounds like you want them to have made a system you couldn't abuse, so
your lack of self restraint couldn't ruin your fun.
Michael Vondung
<nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>anyone arguing with this is a MW junkie & needs to have a reality check to
>let the 'scales fall from their eyes'. It *really* is an old, tired, bent &
>broken system. Sure, perhaps D20 or SPECIAL aren't perfect, but by GOD
>they're F-U-N!!! >8^D
I wasn't blown away by Morrowind, but I'm a huge fan of "by use" skill
systems. From a roleplaying perspective, a system of this kind is far
superior to the "points" system, because your character's actual
actions will reflect his abilities. In a "by use" system, you will
only then get good at moving stealthily if you actually practice it.
In a "points" based system, you can be a master at stealthing without
having it done it even once. A "by use" skill system also allows your
character to evolve, rather than being stuck with the same abilities
for as long as the character exists.
As for cheating, Xocyll responded to this already. If you want to
min/max or cheat, you can find ways to do this in any game. In D2, you
just power-act or leech experience, in D&D games you can save before
you throw the hit die, and then reload until you get the desired
result, and in Morrowind you can put a weight on a key to get your
skill up. Or you can save your time in either game and just hex-edit
your files or use console commands.
"By use" skill systems are harder to code, and require more game
balance, that's why they're not as frequently used. A "points" system
is a lot easier to implement.
M.
Briarroot
>
> [snip]
>
> YOU made your gameplay experience, and from the sounds of it, YOU ruined
> YOUR experience by YOUR choice to min/max, key-hold and so one.
>
> I didn't do those things, I just played the game and had fun and my
> characters reflect that.
>
> Bethesda just gave you a system. If you choose to abuse the system you
> may ruin your fun, but the system doesn't make you abuse it, that's YOUR
> choice.
> Sounds like you want them to have made a system you couldn't abuse, so
> your lack of self restraint couldn't ruin your fun.
That sums it up quite nicely. With Morrowind, Bethesda not only
lets you play their game in any fashion that pleases you, they
*give* you the tools (TESCS) to remodel or retune the game to
produce a very different game than one the developers envisioned.
The system of skill advancement by usage is far more sensible than
other systems used in other games. Is it open to abuse? Of course,
but only by decision of the player. Are there flaws in the design?
Yes of course, as there have likewise been in every game ever produced.
In my opinion, those who approach the Morrowind as a contest to be won,
(presumably as fast as possible) will not be rewarded with an enjoyable
experience. In Morrowind, Bethesda has given the players a remarkably
diverse and fascinating world complete with a well described culture,
history and political climate. They have enabled the players to live
in this world, embark upon whatever adventures they choose at whatever
pace they choose, and allowed them the freedom to savor the experience
in whatever way pleases them most.
The only thing Morrowind lacks is... other players.
Michael Vondung
>The only thing Morrowind lacks is... other players.
And atmosphere. I really tried to love the game, and I do love my
kitty character, but the world feels artifical and sterile. Maybe I
should try to download some of those new "faces", just to make these
drow look a bit less alien. I also wish day/time made any difference
at all. It doesn't. The NPCs run around at night as they do in the
day. Maybe I'm too picky. I have both expansions, and who knows, some
day I might fall in love with it. Presumably when everyone plays
something else.
M.
Nostromo
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:17:07 +1100, Nostromo
><nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
>
>>anyone arguing with this is a MW junkie & needs to have a reality check to
>>let the 'scales fall from their eyes'. It *really* is an old, tired, bent &
>>broken system. Sure, perhaps D20 or SPECIAL aren't perfect, but by GOD
>>they're F-U-N!!! >8^D
>
>I wasn't blown away by Morrowind, but I'm a huge fan of "by use" skill
>systems. From a roleplaying perspective, a system of this kind is far
>superior to the "points" system, because your character's actual
>actions will reflect his abilities. In a "by use" system, you will
>only then get good at moving stealthily if you actually practice it.
>In a "points" based system, you can be a master at stealthing without
>having it done it even once. A "by use" skill system also allows your
>character to evolve, rather than being stuck with the same abilities
>for as long as the character exists.
Ok, but with one caveat to avoid bang-head-on-wall skill progression: you
should NOT be able to improve skills beyond a low level (say 15-25%?)
without performing them in a live, dangerous or roleplaying situation or
scenario. It may not be totally realistic - most of the best fencers in the
world have never killed a man (I assume?), but if balanced correctly, the
game should provide enough actually roleplaying/combat/quest situations to
allow players to increase their skills almost ad infinitum. I don't mind
clearing out selected re-spawn areas over & over, with diminishing returns.
I *DO* mind XP caps & a limited overall pool of XP/skill improvement which
sometimes encourages players to go solo in party games (ala B1/2) or has you
hitting a brick wall half-way through the game.
>As for cheating, Xocyll responded to this already. If you want to
>min/max or cheat, you can find ways to do this in any game. In D2, you
>just power-act or leech experience, in D&D games you can save before
Funnily enough, I have always thought that Diablo/2 could've died a *long*
time ago if they'd only made 1 little *mistake* in the design: allowing
unlimited skill/stat points to be acquired (regardless of levels e.g. as
repeatable quest awards or some such). Ppl would've super-maxed all
stats/skills & then could play any variant with the one char per class,
without the entire xp treadmill BS. Just my 5c worth...;-)
>you throw the hit die, and then reload until you get the desired
>result, and in Morrowind you can put a weight on a key to get your
>skill up. Or you can save your time in either game and just hex-edit
>your files or use console commands.
I couldn't agree more. If I want to 'cheat' in Fallout(2) & edit the
abilities to all 10s at the start & give myself heaps of coin, so what? All
it really means is I only have to play the game through once or twice (w/o
huge struggles at the start or treadmill mini-games throughout) to
experience most of it, without the blood, sweat & tears. Am I weird? ;-)
>"By use" skill systems are harder to code, and require more game
>balance, that's why they're not as frequently used. A "points" system
>is a lot easier to implement.
QED.
Nostromo
wrote:
>
Yup, I felt the same. Played it for *hours* & it always fell just short of
compelling. Beautiful, yes, detailed, definitely, but somehow sterile
(especially the NPCs/quest system). I just always felt alone, like a
stranger in a strange land (as a player I mean ;-). Refer KOTOR for an
example of a quite shallow rpg in comparison that got almost everything else
right...
Rick Russell
Michael Vondung <m...@acnmail.de> wrote:
> kitty character, but the world feels artifical and sterile.
That's probably the worst thing about Morrowind. It's a pretty rare
event in Morrowind that makes you sit up and say, "Wow. I wasn't
expecting that."
IMO, the triumph of Morrowind is that it was good overall despite the
hundreds of cookie-cutter NPCs, marginal character interaction, and
lack of "real life" activities for the NPCs (sitting, sleeping,
closing shops, etc).
If Bethesda's next game could fix the niggly bits with the game engine
(why does levitation looks like walking?) and improve the options for
character interaction, AND give us another world full of huge,
immersive environments, then they would have another huge hit.
Rick R.
Damien Neil
<nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
> I wish I could've put it this succinctly! ;-) This is spot on Damien -
> anyone arguing with this is a MW junkie & needs to have a reality check to
> let the 'scales fall from their eyes'. It *really* is an old, tired, bent &
> broken system. Sure, perhaps D20 or SPECIAL aren't perfect, but by GOD
> they're F-U-N!!! >8^D
Not to say that Morrowind isn't a great game, mind you--it took me a
couple tried to get into it, but I've enjoyed it immensely since then.
The advancement system is completely broken, however.
- Damien
Sarah
news:230220041832567211%ne...@misago.org...
> Not to say that Morrowind isn't a great game, mind you--it took me a
> couple tried to get into it, but I've enjoyed it immensely since then.
> The advancement system is completely broken, however.
I like the idea of advancing in skills that you use. However, they screwed
it up in Morrowind by having trainers, which made the game too easy and
meant that the character classes were essentially meaningless - if you had
the gold, you could train anything up to 100 regardless of class. Allowing
characters to quickly raise skills that they hardly or never used defeated
the whole purpose of the system. If they'd remove trainers (or make it a
lot more difficult to train) and place caps on skills depending on if
they're major, minor, or misc, I think that would improve things a little.
They should also try to close the loopholes somehow (like putting a book on
the sneak key).
Nostromo
Yeah, it's why after reading a few faqs, I promptly installed some user mods
to fix it (also including the faster run & richer merchants mods). Call me
lazy ;-)
Damien Neil
<Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
> >Want to be good at sneaking? Stand somewhere where you can be seen,
> >put a weight on the sneak key, and let the computer sit there
> >overnight. Congratulations, you've got 100 stealth. This is
> >entertaining? The one thing you can say for experience point based
> >systems (and good ones hand out XP for all tasks, not just
> >rat-stabbing) is that they let you advance as a result of entertaining
> >activities, not boring ones.
>
> No this is you doing the equivalent of cheating.
One of the primary laws of game design: If you give a player a boring,
painful, simple way of accomplishing a task, they will take it and hate
you for it. This is a flaw in the design, not the player.
And no, I didn't use the technique above to raise my stealth; the fact
that it is *possible*, however, is a flaw in Morrowind's advancement
system. NEVER reward boredom.
> Walking around in town in "stealth" will boost the skill easily enough
> without cheating.
Not in my experience--and it's quite painful as well, as you move
slowly in stealth mode, and there is no toggle for stealth mode.
> >Worse, until you raise your sneak skill either by spending an hour or
> >two with the sneak key held down or by dumping a lot of gold at a
> >trainer, it isn't usable--a starting thief character can't hide worth a
> >damn.
>
> What starting character in any system is going to be particularly
> skilled in anything?
A starting character can kill any of the common creatures wandering
around the landscape using the weapon of his choice, and can then
progress in that weapon skill through natural use of the skill over the
course of the game. A starting character cannot sneak well enough to
use the skill in any useful fashion, and must deliberately train the
skill (via trainers or use of the skill in situations when stealth is
not called for) in order to advance in it.
> >Compounding the problem are the attribute multipliers, which encourage
> >you to raise different skills in an intricrate dance to optimize your
> >attribute gain per level. "Oops, that's my fourth point in long
> >blade--better switch to another weapon until I can rest and gain a
> >level."
>
> You don't _have_ to use the multipliers.
> I don't, but I could care less about the standard min-maxers mentality.
The presence of the multipliers results in a great imbalance in the
power of an optimized character and an unoptimized one. This makes the
game impossible to balance properly--either the game is impossible to
complete with an unoptimized character, or ridiculously easy with an
optimized one. Difficulty scaling might avoid this; Morrowind's
difficulty is, however, tied to level, not the actual capabilities of
the character.
I generally feel that a game should not require min/maxing to complete;
however, a game should never be broken by min/maxing. Many RPG players
play specifically for the optimization game; if a game provides a path
to optimize a character, it shouldn't fall apart when a player takes
that path.
Of course, Morrowind's play balance is completely broken in all cases,
being ridiculously easy for even unoptimized characters.
> The point is that if your character _happens_ to be using skills that
> have a certain synergy, they'll get a bonus.
>
> Some people saw this and decided that every level up have the maximum
> gain.
>
> People like this aren't just playing for "fun" anymore.
You're overlooking the possibility that people find maximizing gain to
be an entertaining challenge.
The optimization game has *always* been present in RPGs, right back to
the days when pen-and-paper was all we had. Not everyone wants to play
it, which is fine, but it's a valid game to play. A major reason that
people still play Diablo 2 is because it has a very good optimization
game. (Although Angband, one of the philisophical predecessors to
Diablo, has a better one.)
> >Of course, you'll end up good at acrobatics whether or not you pick it
> >as a major, while you'll only end up good at enchantment if you pick it
> >as a major and then spend endless hours and gold practicing it--or just
> >leave it as a misc skill and spend some gold on it.
>
> You will only if you jump or fall from heights.
> If you don't jump or fall, your acrobatics won't go up at all.
I'm sorry, I meant athletics, not acrobatics.
> I've boosted misc skills without buying training, just by using them.
> Yeah it takes longer, but so what, it's a skill my character ISN'T
> focused on.
>
> Major skills = your "job" skills.
> Minor skills = your "hobby" skills.
> Misc skills = stuff you've heard about or seen someone else do.
Except that unless you intend to spend many boring hours making simple
potions, you're better off taking alchemy as a misc skill and paying
someone to train it up than you are taking it as a major skill--and
you'll end up just as good at alchemy as you would have the other way.
> You don't have to min-max, and you can progress without buying training
> in anything, it's just going to take longer.
> Surprise, surprise, just like reality.
>
> Your problem seems to be that you can't NOT manipulate the game to boost
> your ability.
No, that's not my problem at all.
My problem is that my stealth-oriented character template starts out
better at whacking things with a sword than sneaking around and
stealing things.
My problem is that my herbalist with alchemy as a major skill will
never be able to do any useful alchemy without spending hours praticing
on the simplest, cheapest potion possible or spending a fortune on
training. There is no logical, gradual progression in that skill. At
the same time, that herbalist will turn into a master athlete and
swordsman unless he takes great care to never run or pick up a sword.
My problem is that even if the game balance wasn't completely broken to
begin with, it would be virtually impossible to balance the game
properly to handle optimized and unoptimized characters.
My problem is that the developers provided an optimization game (based
on stat boots), but based it on a ludicrous dance of tuned skill
advances.
> YOU made your gameplay experience, and from the sounds of it, YOU ruined
> YOUR experience by YOUR choice to min/max, key-hold and so one.
I min/maxed briefly to get a stealth character capable of sneaking
(which only improved my overall experience) and never key-held to gain
skills.
> Sounds like you want them to have made a system you couldn't abuse, so
> your lack of self restraint couldn't ruin your fun.
While I appreciate that you like the game (so do I), it is not
productive to attack anyone who points out the very real flaws in it
with knee-jerk straw-man arguments. I'm happy to debate the game's
design with you, but I'd appreciate it if you withheld the insults
until they appear justified.
- Damien
Damien Neil
<nost...@spamfree.net.au> wrote:
> Funnily enough, I have always thought that Diablo/2 could've died a *long*
> time ago if they'd only made 1 little *mistake* in the design: allowing
> unlimited skill/stat points to be acquired (regardless of levels e.g. as
> repeatable quest awards or some such). Ppl would've super-maxed all
> stats/skills & then could play any variant with the one char per class,
> without the entire xp treadmill BS. Just my 5c worth...;-)
Yes, indeed!
One of the interesting things about RPG design is that limitations can
be a good thing. It's often much more fun to design a character within
a restrictive ruleset than it is to use a wide-open advancement system.
For example, it can be much more fun to play a master thief who can't
wield a sword to save his life than it is to play a thief who could
easily kill every guard in the castle if discovered. (This was one of
the great strengths of Thief; Garett may have a sword, but he's
generally toast if the guards find him.)
Not, mind you, that I'm knocking the fighter/thief as a character
concept--I like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser as much as anyone. :>
- Damien
Bill Seurer
> A starting character can kill any of the common creatures wandering
> around the landscape using the weapon of his choice, and can then
> progress in that weapon skill through natural use of the skill over the
> course of the game. A starting character cannot sneak well enough to
> use the skill in any useful fashion, and must deliberately train the
> skill (via trainers or use of the skill in situations when stealth is
> not called for) in order to advance in it.
You can start out able to sneak quite well. My very first character was
able to do it without much problem and cleared out many places of all
their merchandise. A wood elf (+10 sneak) with the right specialization
(+5 I think) choosing sneak as a major skill (starts at 30) will start
off with it at 45 if I calculated it correctly. That's more than enough
to grab lots of loot of get close enough to get a "backstab" with a bow
shot.
That said, advancement is vastly too slow compared to other skills. The
same is true for a number of them. It's very likely that you will have
skill 100 in your primary weapon skill (assume you use weapons) long
before the end of the game without training but its not likely that any
other skill will get there and sneak is probably one of the hardest.
Michael Vondung
wrote:
>One of the interesting things about RPG design is that limitations can
>be a good thing. It's often much more fun to design a character within
>a restrictive ruleset than it is to use a wide-open advancement system.
But a "by use" skill system doesn't necessarily mean no restrictions.
Ultima Online, for instance, had the "by use" skill system -- a
character had a skill points cap of 700, and the maximum for a skill
was 100. Once the character reached a total of 700 skill points,
skills would only then raise if other, lesser used, skills
decreased/antrophied. If you were a mage first and later wanted to be
a warrior, you could do this, with lots of effort, by shifting around
skill points (by fighting and casting fewer/no spells).
In a more "open" advancement system with no restrictions, you can
still achieve diversity by linking skills to attributes. Say, the
fishing skill is based on dexterity. To calculate the character's
chance to catch a fish, a simple formula like this one could be used:
Odds of success are 30% plus 1/2 of the skill level plus 1/6 of the
dexterity score. This would still allow everyone to get 100 points in
the fishing skill, but a dexterious character would catch more fish
than a clusmy mage.
M.
Briarroot
>
> >The only thing Morrowind lacks is... other players.
>
> And atmosphere.
Hmmm. To each his/her own, I guess. Atmosphere is what I think
Morrowind does best! <g>
> I really tried to love the game, and I do love my
> kitty character, but the world feels artifical and sterile. Maybe I
> should try to download some of those new "faces", just to make these
> drow look a bit less alien.
What alterations in design do you think would make the game feel
less artificial and sterile for you?
> I also wish day/time made any difference
> at all. It doesn't. The NPCs run around at night as they do in the
> day.
I think that's because Daggerfall was heavily slagged for its NPCs
who closed up shop, went home and disappeared at night. We players
didn't like having to wait around until dawn to do business or locate
a quest npc. It was a major hassle, but I admit that the current
scheme leaves much to be desired.
Briarroot
>
> Ok, but with one caveat to avoid bang-head-on-wall skill progression: you
> should NOT be able to improve skills beyond a low level (say 15-25%?)
> without performing them in a live, dangerous or roleplaying situation or
> scenario.
This is an important idea. Morrowind should never have
allowed players to train up skills all the way to the top.
Training should have meant learning only the rudiments of
a skill, not absolute mastery. Sharpening skills to the
highest levels should only come from applied practice in
the field. The problem is in coding. The program must
be able to tell if you're casting that Destruction spell
at an enemy or a flower pot. Lots of games have run into
this problem.
Briarroot
>
>
> Yup, I felt the same. Played it for *hours* & it always fell just short of
> compelling. Beautiful, yes, detailed, definitely, but somehow sterile
> (especially the NPCs/quest system). I just always felt alone, like a
> stranger in a strange land (as a player I mean ;-). Refer KOTOR for an
> example of a quite shallow rpg in comparison that got almost everything else
> right...
For me, this feeling is the result of having spent so many
hours in MMORPGs. Frequently while playing Morrowind, I'd
get the urge to turn around and say: "hey, did you see that?"
Only there's no one there. (Except my cat. And he's usally
asleep! <g> )
Briarroot
>
> "Damien Neil" <ne...@misago.org> wrote in message
> news:230220041832567211%ne...@misago.org...
>
> > Not to say that Morrowind isn't a great game, mind you--it took me a
> > couple tried to get into it, but I've enjoyed it immensely since then.
> > The advancement system is completely broken, however.
>
> I like the idea of advancing in skills that you use. However, they screwed
> it up in Morrowind by having trainers, which made the game too easy and
> meant that the character classes were essentially meaningless - if you had
> the gold, you could train anything up to 100 regardless of class.
That's another point. There's simply way too much gold in the
game, although I suppose one doesn't *have* to sell those high
priced items. It seems a shame to just decorate my rooms with
them, though. ;-)
> Allowing
> characters to quickly raise skills that they hardly or never used defeated
> the whole purpose of the system. If they'd remove trainers (or make it a
> lot more difficult to train) and place caps on skills depending on if
> they're major, minor, or misc, I think that would improve things a little.
> They should also try to close the loopholes somehow (like putting a book on
> the sneak key).
Exactly.
Briarroot
>
> Of course, Morrowind's play balance is completely broken in all cases,
> being ridiculously easy for even unoptimized characters.
This is one result of their unfortunate decision to allow
all 'classes' to have access to all skills. My physical
combat specialist eventually ended up with a very similar
skill set as my caster or my stealth/ranged fighter type.
My fault of course, but it became too hard to resist.
There should have been *some* class restrictions on skills.
The starting advantages and disadvantages of race and class
choice became meaningless after about 20 levels.
Sarah
news:c1evb...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> You can start out able to sneak quite well. My very first character was
> able to do it without much problem and cleared out many places of all
> their merchandise. A wood elf (+10 sneak) with the right specialization
> (+5 I think) choosing sneak as a major skill (starts at 30) will start
> off with it at 45 if I calculated it correctly. That's more than enough
> to grab lots of loot of get close enough to get a "backstab" with a bow
> shot.
Actually, I've had characters starting out with a sneak skill of 5 who have
advanced it up to a decent level with no training so I completely agree that
you can start out sneaking no problem. When playing Morrowind, you have to
have a certain attitude. Since the game can take months to complete, it's
not necesssary that skills be advancing a level every 5 minutes.
> That said, advancement is vastly too slow compared to other skills. The
> same is true for a number of them.
Absolutely. This is why I usually falter when trying to play a magic user.
Cast 40 fire bites - look at your destruction skill - it's advanced to
something like 20%. Kill two rats. Your longblade skill goes up 5 levels.
Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not much. I don't know why they weighted the
advancement for each skill the way they did - it's another aspect of the
skill system that defeated it.
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Nostromo wrote:
That doesn't really make sense though.
Shooting at a target will still give you practice and hone your skill,
you don't only get better if you shoot at living things.
Casting the spell is casting the spell, it doesn't matter what you shoot
it at if it's just damage related.
A fireball doesn't care if it hits an Orc or a rock or a tree, it's
still a fireball doing X damage.
Now if it's a mind control spell, or paralysis, or charm, then yes it
needs a living target.
Last I checked Morrowind didn't allow you to train your skills to
maximum.
Most of the trainers capped out somewhere around 60%, and only the
special trainers would go higher - and you had to find them. As I
recall one of them is hostile too.
I don't think any trainer would actually train to 100, not ones that
came from Bethesda anyway (I just KNOW someone made a mod with super
trainers.)
Sarah
news:dhnm301v738nmlrkj...@4ax.com...
> Most of the trainers capped out somewhere around 60%, and only the
> special trainers would go higher - and you had to find them. As I
> recall one of them is hostile too.
But the problem still remains that a mage can train all the combat related
skills to 60 if they so choose just by handing over gold. And warrior types
can become expert casters the same way. It's also a shame that everyone can
use scrolls and enchanted items (and it's a shame that you can't scribe
spells from scrolls too). Sure a high enchant skill means you're more
efficient at using them, but it would have been better if you could only use
items that matched your skill level (meaning that a warrior with a 5 in
enchant shouldn't be able to use constant effect items or be able to use
powerful items). I guess what I'm saying is that it would have been better
if the major/minor/misc skills actually made a difference, so you were
forced to make a choice about what skills to develop because your choices
would significantly affect gameplay, but that's just not the case with
Morrowind. I like the idea of advancing skills based on what you use, but
they boggled it in Morrowind.
Nostromo
Briarroot
>
> Briarroot <woo...@iwonantispam.com> looked up from reading the entrails
> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
> >Nostromo wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok, but with one caveat to avoid bang-head-on-wall skill progression: you
> >> should NOT be able to improve skills beyond a low level (say 15-25%?)
> >> without performing them in a live, dangerous or roleplaying situation or
> >> scenario.
> >
> >This is an important idea. Morrowind should never have
> >allowed players to train up skills all the way to the top.
> >Training should have meant learning only the rudiments of
> >a skill, not absolute mastery. Sharpening skills to the
> >highest levels should only come from applied practice in
> >the field. The problem is in coding. The program must
> >be able to tell if you're casting that Destruction spell
> >at an enemy or a flower pot. Lots of games have run into
> >this problem.
>
> That doesn't really make sense though.
>
> Shooting at a target will still give you practice and hone your skill,
> you don't only get better if you shoot at living things.
Perhaps not, but it is consistent with the ethos of risk
versus reward that pervades most RPGs.
> Casting the spell is casting the spell, it doesn't matter what you shoot
> it at if it's just damage related.
> A fireball doesn't care if it hits an Orc or a rock or a tree, it's
> still a fireball doing X damage.
Perhaps it could be said that the caster who has an Orc charging
at him swinging a large ax, gains a certain clarity of mind and
learns to concentrate and cast *quickly* ... or he dies. The same
could be said for melee weapons. Swinging at a training dummy is
a completely different thing than dodging, parrying and slashing at
someone who is trying to kill you.
> Now if it's a mind control spell, or paralysis, or charm, then yes it
> needs a living target.
>
> Last I checked Morrowind didn't allow you to train your skills to
> maximum.
You're mistaken. There are Master trainers located throughout
Vvardenfell that will accept gold to train your character up to
100 for each skill. Only the Medium Armor trainer is missing
from the unmodded game. The Enchant trainer is hostile to most
players, but it's possible to train with him anyway if one is
clever enough and has the right spells. (Though I don't think
Enchant is worth training up all the way anyhow.)
Nostromo
wrote:
>> Shooting at a target will still give you practice and hone your skill,
>> you don't only get better if you shoot at living things.
>
>Perhaps not, but it is consistent with the ethos of risk
>versus reward that pervades most RPGs.
>
>
>> Casting the spell is casting the spell, it doesn't matter what you shoot
>> it at if it's just damage related.
>> A fireball doesn't care if it hits an Orc or a rock or a tree, it's
>> still a fireball doing X damage.
>
>Perhaps it could be said that the caster who has an Orc charging
>at him swinging a large ax, gains a certain clarity of mind and
>learns to concentrate and cast *quickly* ... or he dies. The same
>could be said for melee weapons. Swinging at a training dummy is
>a completely different thing than dodging, parrying and slashing at
>someone who is trying to kill you.
BINGO!!! The XP gained will, after all, be used to beat up even bigger
monsters, open harder locks & disarm more dangerous traps - all done under
duress in a dangerous situations usually. Thus, it makes more sense that for
this type of crpg xp model you gain XP in the way which it costs you more or
has inherent risk, to get better at harder & riskier endeavours. Anything
else is so much slashing at straw dummies...;-)
>
>> Now if it's a mind control spell, or paralysis, or charm, then yes it
>> needs a living target.
>>
>> Last I checked Morrowind didn't allow you to train your skills to
>> maximum.
>
>You're mistaken. There are Master trainers located throughout
>Vvardenfell that will accept gold to train your character up to
>100 for each skill. Only the Medium Armor trainer is missing
>from the unmodded game. The Enchant trainer is hostile to most
>players, but it's possible to train with him anyway if one is
>clever enough and has the right spells. (Though I don't think
>Enchant is worth training up all the way anyhow.)
--
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>"Xocyll" <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote in message
I don't see it that way. Morrowind, like the other Elder Scrolls games
and BaK are the only system that's even remotely realistic.
In real life there's nothing stopping you getting training in dozens of
different skills if you have the money and time, so why should a game
limit you in ways that reality doesn't?
I don't understand your comment about CE items. Why would you need
magical skill to wear a magic ring that _always_ has an effect?
It's not like you need to activate it, it's an _always_ on effect.
Bethesda created a world where "classes" are simply an arbitrary
description of someone with a certain set of skills, not a rigid
limitation to those skills and no others.
There's nothing stopping an Accountant from also being a mechanic, and
being able to water ski and a paint a house and knowing how to fence.
So why shouldn't a mage have decent fighting skill, or a warrior be able
to cast a spell, since "mage" and "warrior" are simply arbitrary
descriptions of their Primary skill focusses?
Case in point: My father is an English teacher (well ok, was, since
he's retired now).
He's also a musician (flute, Clarinet, Saxophone), a fairly decent
amateur carpenter, painter, plumber, electrician, gardener, mechanic.
Music is a talent, but the rest are skills anyone can learn and _many_
do even though they have nothing to do with their "job".
Considering the fairly low cap on max selling price i'd say that
Bethesda did make it hard to be good at everything, since cash isn't
that easy to come by, unless you add a new merchant or spend a lot of
time shuffling items around to different merchants.
Neil Cerutti
wrote:
> In real life there's nothing stopping you getting training in
> dozens of different skills if you have the money and time, so
> why should a game limit you in ways that reality doesn't?
A game should limit you in ways that reality doesn't when it is
more fun to do so.
--
Neil Cerutti
*** Life is a function returning void. ***
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Xocyll wrote:
>>
>> Briarroot <woo...@iwonantispam.com> looked up from reading the entrails
>> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>> >Nostromo wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ok, but with one caveat to avoid bang-head-on-wall skill progression: you
>> >> should NOT be able to improve skills beyond a low level (say 15-25%?)
>> >> without performing them in a live, dangerous or roleplaying situation or
>> >> scenario.
>> >
>> >This is an important idea. Morrowind should never have
>> >allowed players to train up skills all the way to the top.
>> >Training should have meant learning only the rudiments of
>> >a skill, not absolute mastery. Sharpening skills to the
>> >highest levels should only come from applied practice in
>> >the field. The problem is in coding. The program must
>> >be able to tell if you're casting that Destruction spell
>> >at an enemy or a flower pot. Lots of games have run into
>> >this problem.
>>
>> That doesn't really make sense though.
>>
>> Shooting at a target will still give you practice and hone your skill,
>> you don't only get better if you shoot at living things.
>
>Perhaps not, but it is consistent with the ethos of risk
>versus reward that pervades most RPGs.
But that "ethos of risk" is generally only there because almost all
"experience" is earned in some kind of conflict.
But we're talking about skills here, not experience.
>> Casting the spell is casting the spell, it doesn't matter what you shoot
>> it at if it's just damage related.
>> A fireball doesn't care if it hits an Orc or a rock or a tree, it's
>> still a fireball doing X damage.
>
>Perhaps it could be said that the caster who has an Orc charging
>at him swinging a large ax, gains a certain clarity of mind and
>learns to concentrate and cast *quickly* ... or he dies. The same
>could be said for melee weapons. Swinging at a training dummy is
>a completely different thing than dodging, parrying and slashing at
>someone who is trying to kill you.
True, but how is live practice different from a real fight, other than
in aim?
People did tend to get trained in the use of a sword before they went
out and fought for real.
Or running by yourself vs in a marathon?
Or changing the oil filter in your car at home, vs doing it to a
customers car as a mechanic?
Or a musician sitting at home practicing chords on his guitar.
He doesn't only get better in front of an audience, he gets better by
practice. Playing live might improve his _group_ playing skills and his
concentration and heckling resistance (and dodge skill if it's a rowdy
crowd), but the actual playing isn't going to get better any more or
less than when he was home alone.
Most things are _exactly_ the same skill regardless of where or how it's
being done.
A painter practices and gets better at painting.
He doesn't only improve when he's doing a paid job.
>> Now if it's a mind control spell, or paralysis, or charm, then yes it
>> needs a living target.
>>
>> Last I checked Morrowind didn't allow you to train your skills to
>> maximum.
>
>You're mistaken. There are Master trainers located throughout
>Vvardenfell that will accept gold to train your character up to
>100 for each skill. Only the Medium Armor trainer is missing
>from the unmodded game. The Enchant trainer is hostile to most
>players, but it's possible to train with him anyway if one is
>clever enough and has the right spells. (Though I don't think
>Enchant is worth training up all the way anyhow.)
I didn't think the master trainers went all the way to 100, but it has
been some time since I last played Morrowind.
I never used a master trainer.
Michael Vondung
>A game should limit you in ways that reality doesn't when it is
>more fun to do so.
That's the point. I find "by use" skill systems to be a lot more fun
than the restrictive "by points" alternative. :)
M.
Sarah
> In real life there's nothing stopping you getting training in dozens of
> different skills if you have the money and time, so why should a game
> limit you in ways that reality doesn't?
Yes, you can spend all you want and train in anything, but will you become
an expert in everything just because you've got the money and time to train?
No.
> I don't understand your comment about CE items. Why would you need
> magical skill to wear a magic ring that _always_ has an effect?
> It's not like you need to activate it, it's an _always_ on effect.
The fact that there is an Enchant skill and that it influences how
efficiently enchanted items are used implies to me that the user of
enchanted items does "something" to use the enchantment. This implies to me
that to use an item that is enchanted with constant effect would be too
draining on someone who has a very low enchant skill. This is my own
interpretation and it's not an important point with me so I don't want to
waste huge amounts of time and words arguing over it. :-)
> Case in point: My father is an English teacher (well ok, was, since
> he's retired now).
> He's also a musician (flute, Clarinet, Saxophone), a fairly decent
> amateur carpenter, painter, plumber, electrician, gardener, mechanic.
> Music is a talent, but the rest are skills anyone can learn and _many_
> do even though they have nothing to do with their "job".
Yes, but not everyone will be an expert at it. If you read my previous
posts, you'll see that I'm not advocating that classes can't train all
skills. I'm annoyed because they can train every skill to an expert level.
They should be able to become "fairly decent", as your father is, but they
shouldn't be able to attain perfection or near-perfection for skills that
just don't make sense for their class. That's why I suggested that there
should be different skill caps for major, minor, and misc skills.
> Considering the fairly low cap on max selling price i'd say that
> Bethesda did make it hard to be good at everything, since cash isn't
> that easy to come by, unless you add a new merchant or spend a lot of
> time shuffling items around to different merchants.
You're kidding, right. Cash is very easy to come by, especially if you
don't enchant items much.
Xocyll
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>In article <fsdp30pfa6u9r8ucq...@4ax.com>, Xocyll
>wrote:
>> In real life there's nothing stopping you getting training in
>> dozens of different skills if you have the money and time, so
>> why should a game limit you in ways that reality doesn't?
>
>A game should limit you in ways that reality doesn't when it is
>more fun to do so.
Horses for courses.
I find the completely arbitrary limits of something like 2nd ed AD&D to
be far more annoying.
It's not fun to be told "you can't learn this skill, you're the wrong
class" when it's a skill anyone could learn in reality.
I find Bethesda's Elder Scrolls games (well the last two anyway) give me
the choice to choose my own game experience.
It's a pretty rare thing these days to have games that give you real
choices and real control over what your actions are going to be.
Not nearly enough in my opinion, but "the masses" seem to have a taste
for heavily scripted, totally linear, cutscene heavy, eye-candy laden,
"stories" for them to walk a predefined character through.
I don't reckon that's likely to change anytime soon.
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>> Xocyll" <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote in message
>news:fsdp30pfa6u9r8ucq...@4ax.com...
>
>> In real life there's nothing stopping you getting training in dozens of
>> different skills if you have the money and time, so why should a game
>> limit you in ways that reality doesn't?
>
>Yes, you can spend all you want and train in anything, but will you become
>an expert in everything just because you've got the money and time to train?
>No.
If you want to you can. There are people who do get multiple degrees
from university and others who's level of skill in a hobby is
professional level.
Consider the people who speak, read and write dozens of languages.
You might also consider the Pioneer types of the not so distant past,
who might be skilled herders, skilled hunters, skilled woodworkers and
so on, because there was no one else to do it for them.
Most people won't be expert at more than a couple things max, but there
are those who are expert in all kinds of things, just because they want
to be and they happen to have the resources to afford it.
>> I don't understand your comment about CE items. Why would you need
>> magical skill to wear a magic ring that _always_ has an effect?
>> It's not like you need to activate it, it's an _always_ on effect.
>
>The fact that there is an Enchant skill and that it influences how
>efficiently enchanted items are used implies to me that the user of
>enchanted items does "something" to use the enchantment. This implies to me
>that to use an item that is enchanted with constant effect would be too
>draining on someone who has a very low enchant skill. This is my own
>interpretation and it's not an important point with me so I don't want to
>waste huge amounts of time and words arguing over it. :-)
I never noticed any particular effect of my enchant skill when using
items. When casting a spell yes, but not item use.
Considering the rather _low_ value magic items have, and their
ubiquitous nature in Morrowind, they seem to be designed to be easy to
use, even by those with absolutely no magic skills of any kind.
>> Case in point: My father is an English teacher (well ok, was, since
>> he's retired now).
>> He's also a musician (flute, Clarinet, Saxophone), a fairly decent
>> amateur carpenter, painter, plumber, electrician, gardener, mechanic.
>> Music is a talent, but the rest are skills anyone can learn and _many_
>> do even though they have nothing to do with their "job".
>
>Yes, but not everyone will be an expert at it. If you read my previous
>posts, you'll see that I'm not advocating that classes can't train all
>skills. I'm annoyed because they can train every skill to an expert level.
>They should be able to become "fairly decent", as your father is, but they
>shouldn't be able to attain perfection or near-perfection for skills that
>just don't make sense for their class. That's why I suggested that there
>should be different skill caps for major, minor, and misc skills.
I would have preferred that un-used skills would decay, but I can
understand why Bethesda didn't do that (since it would mean endless
"multipliers" and stat gains.)
The big question is: Is the max amount you can train in Morrowind
"expert", or merely the point at which you won't ever fail at the task.
I don't see the two being identical.
You can be "expert" enough at riding a horse that you won't ever fall
off, but that doesn't mean you have every possible riding skill.
Even 100 Marksman skill doesn't mean you won't ever miss, just that you
most likely won't miss if you aim carefully.
100 swimming skill might make you slide through the water like an eel,
but you can still drown.
And so on...
I think people are too hung up on the max skill levels as being "master
craftsman" level.
I think it's just the point at which things have become instinctive and
your chance of failing is next to nothing.
There's a long distance between the point at which a carpenter doesn't
screw up making cabinets, and the work of a master craftsman.
>> Considering the fairly low cap on max selling price i'd say that
>> Bethesda did make it hard to be good at everything, since cash isn't
>> that easy to come by, unless you add a new merchant or spend a lot of
>> time shuffling items around to different merchants.
>
>You're kidding, right. Cash is very easy to come by, especially if you
>don't enchant items much.
There's lots of items to sell yes, but unless you spend a LOT of time
resting between sales, shuffling between shopkeepers or installing a
high cash buyer, there aren't a lot of ready buyers for things at their
value or anything close to it.
Sure installing "Zed" or the like gets you absolutely rolling in cash
even if you do a lot of enchanting, but otherwise it's pretty slow
going.
Briarroot
>
> Briarroot <woo...@iwonantispam.com> looked up from reading the entrails
> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
> >>
> >> That doesn't really make sense though.
> >>
> >> Shooting at a target will still give you practice and hone your skill,
> >> you don't only get better if you shoot at living things.
> >
> >Perhaps not, but it is consistent with the ethos of risk
> >versus reward that pervades most RPGs.
>
> But that "ethos of risk" is generally only there because almost all
> "experience" is earned in some kind of conflict.
I don't think that's true, I think the risk/reward system is the
heart of role playing and not merely a game design criterion.
> But we're talking about skills here, not experience.
Yes, and skills are sharpened by the experience of using
them. My point is that the act of using them in combat
makes for *much* more concentration. The old adage that
experience is the best teacher comes into play.
> >> Casting the spell is casting the spell, it doesn't matter what you shoot
> >> it at if it's just damage related.
> >> A fireball doesn't care if it hits an Orc or a rock or a tree, it's
> >> still a fireball doing X damage.
> >
> >Perhaps it could be said that the caster who has an Orc charging
> >at him swinging a large ax, gains a certain clarity of mind and
> >learns to concentrate and cast *quickly* ... or he dies. The same
> >could be said for melee weapons. Swinging at a training dummy is
> >a completely different thing than dodging, parrying and slashing at
> >someone who is trying to kill you.
>
> True, but how is live practice different from a real fight, other than
> in aim?
>
> People did tend to get trained in the use of a sword before they went
> out and fought for real.
And those who had fought and survived a thousand fights were
far better at it than those who had never fought. Or don't
you think nerves are a factor in performance? Combat veterans
routinely outperform rookies, despite the amount of time the
rookie has spent in training.
> Or running by yourself vs in a marathon?
> Or changing the oil filter in your car at home, vs doing it to a
> customers car as a mechanic?
>
> Or a musician sitting at home practicing chords on his guitar.
> He doesn't only get better in front of an audience, he gets better by
> practice. Playing live might improve his _group_ playing skills and his
> concentration and heckling resistance (and dodge skill if it's a rowdy
> crowd), but the actual playing isn't going to get better any more or
> less than when he was home alone.
None of these activities are comparable with combat.
> Most things are _exactly_ the same skill regardless of where or how it's
> being done.
Most things maybe, (that's another debate for another day) but
we're talking here about risking one's life. The threat of death
has a marvelous way of *focusing* one's attention.
Damien Neil
<woo...@iwonantispam.com> wrote:
> What alterations in design do you think would make the game feel
> less artificial and sterile for you?
I'm not the original poster, but there were one thing that really
bugged me in Morrowind and made it difficult to get into the game: NPCs
who stand in the same place 24 hours a day, and who all say exactly the
same thing.
Ultima V managed to have NPCs with a daily movement cycle on an
Apple 2. I'd really like to know why nobody seems to be able to do it
anymore. (Did even Ultima IV have NPC cycles? I can't remember.)
I'd vastly prefer the game if NPCs woke up in the morning, ate
breakfast, went to work, came home in the evening, had dinner, and went
to bed. At the same time, take out all the default conversational
entries (why is everyone from commoner to noble willing to act as my
personal encyclopaedia?) and add in a few lines of character-specific
dialogue for each NPC. It doesn't have to be anything more than "get
lost, I'm in a hurry"; just give me some sense that these are different
people.
- Damien
Damien Neil
Vondung <mvon...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:31:12 -0800, Damien Neil <ne...@misago.org>
> wrote:
> >One of the interesting things about RPG design is that limitations can
> >be a good thing. It's often much more fun to design a character within
> >a restrictive ruleset than it is to use a wide-open advancement system.
>
> But a "by use" skill system doesn't necessarily mean no restrictions.
Oh, absolutely! There's nothing preventing a "by use" system from
limiting total character development, although you'd better include a
means for people to choose not to advance a skill in that case. (I
recall stories of UO players carefully avoiding looking at blacksmiths
at work, lest they accidentally increase their smithing skill and limit
progress elsewhere.) (Yes, I know that's been fixed for years.)
- Damien
Briarroot
>
> In article <403B432F...@iwonantispam.com>, Briarroot
> <woo...@iwonantispam.com> wrote:
> > What alterations in design do you think would make the game feel
> > less artificial and sterile for you?
>
> I'm not the original poster, but there were one thing that really
> bugged me in Morrowind and made it difficult to get into the game: NPCs
> who stand in the same place 24 hours a day, and who all say exactly the
> same thing.
Agreed. I think the design was a compromise. I liked it
better than Daggerfall's disappearing NPCs, but it clearly
needs more work.
> I'd vastly prefer the game if NPCs woke up in the morning, ate
> breakfast, went to work, came home in the evening, had dinner, and went
> to bed. At the same time, take out all the default conversational
> entries (why is everyone from commoner to noble willing to act as my
> personal encyclopaedia?) and add in a few lines of character-specific
> dialogue for each NPC. It doesn't have to be anything more than "get
> lost, I'm in a hurry"; just give me some sense that these are different
> people.
That's sounds great. I wonder when (if) we'll ever see a game
like that. ;-)
Briarroot
>
> "Sarah" <scrub...@DELrogers.comDEL> looked up from reading the
> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
> >
> >an expert in everything just because you've got the money and time to train?
> >No.
>
> If you want to you can. There are people who do get multiple degrees
> from university and others who's level of skill in a hobby is
> professional level.
>
> Consider the people who speak, read and write dozens of languages.
How common are these kinds of talents? Extremely rare, I'd say.
Most people have trouble attaining mastery in *one* field of
endeavor.
> You might also consider the Pioneer types of the not so distant past,
> who might be skilled herders, skilled hunters, skilled woodworkers and
> so on, because there was no one else to do it for them.
Right, and they gained that skill by doing, not by training.
> Most people won't be expert at more than a couple things max, but there
> are those who are expert in all kinds of things, just because they want
> to be and they happen to have the resources to afford it.
I think most people's dreams are limited by the talents
nature endowed them with. Granted, in RPGs we expect those
limits to be extended, but IMO we don't want them entirely
removed. I prefer to retain a bit of reality in my fantasy;
something to anchor myself while sojourning in strange worlds.
YMMV
Sarah
> If you want to you can. There are people who do get multiple degrees
> from university and others who's level of skill in a hobby is
> professional level.
I believe there has to be some raw talent there in order for someone to
become expert in something. Money and time and training and desire will
only take you so far. Sure, there are people who excel at everything they
try, but they are the exception, not the rule.
> I think people are too hung up on the max skill levels as being "master
> craftsman" level.
No, people are hung up on the fact that every character class can train all
skills to the max. It doesn't matter to me exactly what 100 means. I don't
think all skills should be trainable to 100, whether it means you're a
master/expert or that your chances at failing are small. I want the
character classes to actually mean something and the "advance by using"
skill system to actually mean something, therefore I don't want every skill
to be trainable to the max by every single character class.
> Sure installing "Zed" or the like gets you absolutely rolling in cash
> even if you do a lot of enchanting, but otherwise it's pretty slow
> going.
I've never installed a merchant mod and I don't use creeper or the mud crab
because I don't think they fit in the world - and after level 10 or so, I'm
always loaded with cash.
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>"Xocyll" <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote in message
>news:5k9r30d8knciaceu3...@4ax.com...
>
>> If you want to you can. There are people who do get multiple degrees
>> from university and others who's level of skill in a hobby is
>> professional level.
>
>I believe there has to be some raw talent there in order for someone to
>become expert in something. Money and time and training and desire will
>only take you so far. Sure, there are people who excel at everything they
>try, but they are the exception, not the rule.
>
>> I think people are too hung up on the max skill levels as being "master
>> craftsman" level.
>
>No, people are hung up on the fact that every character class can train all
>skills to the max. It doesn't matter to me exactly what 100 means. I don't
>think all skills should be trainable to 100, whether it means you're a
>master/expert or that your chances at failing are small. I want the
>character classes to actually mean something and the "advance by using"
>skill system to actually mean something, therefore I don't want every skill
>to be trainable to the max by every single character class.
You seem to have skipped over my point.
If 100 skill = competence and not mastery than what is the problem?
100 Cooking skill means you can make meals without burning them or
otherwise screwing up, it doesn't make you a master chef.
Damn near _Everyone_ can achieve competence in 100s of things.
I don't think that 100 skill means you're at 1 in a million super genius
level of ability, just the point where you can do whatever it is without
really thinking about it and not fail at it.
Sure 100 acrobatics means I can fall from heights and not take much (if
any damage), does it make my character a world class gymnast? NO!
Here's what makes me think that it's not "Mastery".
Enchanting.
If 100 Enchant was Mastery, you could create a Constant Effect item
without fail every time.
But you can't.
CE items fall into the Master Enchanter or "Genius Level" of magical
crafting ability, and that's a hell of a lot higher than 100 points.
The Mage Guild Enchanters never ever fail, so they must have
considerably more Enchanting ability than you do.
Probably because that's ALL they do.
The Mage Guild Transporters can teleport you to another location - you
can't do that at all (recall, ALMSIVI and Divine intervention teleport
YOU not another person.)
One last example.
100 Driving skill makes you a damn good driver. Capable of driving in
all weather conditions, always paying attention to the surroundings and
traffic, and the sort of person who drives for years without getting in
an accident.
It doesn't make you Mario Andretti.
Sarah
> You seem to have skipped over my point.
I got your point - I responded by saying that it doesn't matter what 100
means - it won't change what I think is wrong with the skill system. So the
fact that you responded by spending your entire post explaining what you
think 100 means tells me that you're just not getting where I'm coming from.
I'll try again.
> If 100 skill = competence and not mastery than what is the problem?
Let's assume that 100 skill does equal competence, just for the sake of this
discussion (because it really doesn't matter what 100 means). The problem
is that all character classes have the same maximum competency level for all
skills. It makes no sense that a warrior can only achieve the same
competency level in athletics as a mage can. The warrior should be able to
achieve a much higher competency level than a mage in skills like athletics
and longblade and heavy armor, that's why they're a warrior. And the game
should ensure that a warrior can achieve a higher competency level than a
mage in skills that are traditionally associated with warriors, otherwise
there's no point in having character classes.
Whether 100 means mastery or competence, the point stands. Because the game
doesn't ensure this, character classes don't mean anything since every class
can achieve 100 in every skill. It doesn't matter what 100 means. What
matters is that the character classes don't mean anything except at the
start of the game. After a few levels, they all start to look the same.
That is one of my gripes with the skill system.
You don't have to agree with this particular gripe about the skill system,
but if you don't get what I'm trying to say after this, I give up.
Damien Neil
<woo...@iwonantispam.com> wrote:
> > I'd vastly prefer the game if NPCs woke up in the morning, ate
> > breakfast, went to work, came home in the evening, had dinner, and went
> > to bed. At the same time, take out all the default conversational
> > entries (why is everyone from commoner to noble willing to act as my
> > personal encyclopaedia?) and add in a few lines of character-specific
> > dialogue for each NPC. It doesn't have to be anything more than "get
> > lost, I'm in a hurry"; just give me some sense that these are different
> > people.
>
> That's sounds great. I wonder when (if) we'll ever see a game
> like that. ;-)
Oh, I don't know--about sixteen years ago? :> I was describing
Ultima V.
- Damien
Michael Cecil
Briarroot
<chuckle!>
Ok, why do you suppose that system has not been
repeatedly copied by every developer since then?
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>"Xocyll" <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote in message
>news:mhet30laq1bo9m1b3...@4ax.com...
>
>> You seem to have skipped over my point.
>
>I got your point - I responded by saying that it doesn't matter what 100
>means - it won't change what I think is wrong with the skill system. So the
>fact that you responded by spending your entire post explaining what you
>think 100 means tells me that you're just not getting where I'm coming from.
>I'll try again.
Oh I get where you're coming from, but it doesn't apply to Elder Scrolls
games.
>> If 100 skill = competence and not mastery than what is the problem?
>
>Let's assume that 100 skill does equal competence, just for the sake of this
>discussion (because it really doesn't matter what 100 means). The problem
>is that all character classes have the same maximum competency level for all
>skills. It makes no sense that a warrior can only achieve the same
>competency level in athletics as a mage can. The warrior should be able to
>achieve a much higher competency level than a mage in skills like athletics
>and longblade and heavy armor, that's why they're a warrior. And the game
>should ensure that a warrior can achieve a higher competency level than a
>mage in skills that are traditionally associated with warriors, otherwise
>there's no point in having character classes.
You're thinking about it in a non Elder Scrolls way.
In D&D and similar systems your class defines your skills and knowledge.
In ES games your skills and knowledge define your class.
He doesn't have those skills because he's a Warrior, he's a Warrior
because he has those skills and those are his best skills.
For another example of this kind of outlook, see Dungeon Siege, where
you start as a farmer and your "class" depends on what you do.
>Whether 100 means mastery or competence, the point stands. Because the game
>doesn't ensure this, character classes don't mean anything since every class
>can achieve 100 in every skill. It doesn't matter what 100 means. What
>matters is that the character classes don't mean anything except at the
>start of the game. After a few levels, they all start to look the same.
>That is one of my gripes with the skill system.
Ok, fair enough.
As you said "What matters is that the character classes don't mean
anything except at the start of the game."
That's the crux, and where Morrowind deviates sharply from most other
RPGs.
Your class really IS nothing more than your staring point.
I'd have preferred if Morrowind had changed "class" titles based on
current skills the way Dungeon Siege did instead of staying fixed, but
whatever.
>You don't have to agree with this particular gripe about the skill system,
>but if you don't get what I'm trying to say after this, I give up.
Xocyll
Sarah
> Oh I get where you're coming from, but it doesn't apply to Elder Scrolls
games.
If you'd gotten where I was coming from, you wouldn't have spent so much
time explaining what 100 means, but I'll let it slide. ;-)
> I'd have preferred if Morrowind had changed "class" titles based on
> current skills the way Dungeon Siege did instead of staying fixed
I agree. I understand what you're saying about skills defining your class,
but it's not implemented that way in MW. If you check the character
settings, the class at the beginning of the game is the same as that at the
end of the game. Two characters can have identical skill levels and spell
lists, but one will be a mage and the other a warrior. If the character
class changed as the game progressed depending on what skills were
developed, it would make more sense and would also alleviate the training
problem somewhat. Though I still think there should be skill caps based on
choices made during character creation and in game, otherwise everyone will
be the same character class at the end. The fact that the chosen character
class becomes meaningless and that all characters look the same at the end
irritates me. YMMV, of course.
Damien Neil
<woo...@iwonantispam.com> wrote:
> Ok, why do you suppose that system has not been
> repeatedly copied by every developer since then?
I'd love to know!
Even in those days, Ultima was always a cut above the competition in
terms of character and world interaction. The style peaked in
Ultima VII, where you could famously do anything and everything
including bake bread.
Nobody seems to have attempted to follow in their footsteps. Morrowind
does come close in terms of world detail--the intricate environments
constructed of common elements reused well (bookcases, plates, knives,
etc.) reminds me strongly of the style of the Ultimas. They left out
the environmental interactivity of U7, of course, but I can't view that
as a tremendous loss. Baking bread is fun, but it isn't the core of
the game.
Nobody seems to script NPCs to act out the motions of living.
- Damien
Briarroot
I think designers' ambitions often outstrip the abilities of
programmers to create the appropriate code in a reasonable
amount of time at a realistic budget. Writing code is still
a creative art and not (yet) a science and cannot be commanded.
Then there are the demands of publishers who are only interested
in delivering an 'entertainment product' and whose expectations
must be met by developers, forcing them to consider questions like:
"how many programmers working for how long will it take to create
the code that I want? Will the result work like I envision it
should? And how much will it cost us to do all that?" The process
was a lot simpler when Ultima V was created and programming the 2D
world of the Ultimas was *much* simpler than todays furious mix of
3D visuals with 3D sound effects and music.
I've the impression that Morrowind as it is, was a compromise;
that the designers did not get to do everything they would have
liked to do; that they reached the end of the budget and/or the
allotted time to deliver the 'product' and were forced to end
development and sell what they had. Shipping TESCS in the game
box made up for some of that, but could not disguise the fact
that there are a lot of 'loose ends' in Morrowind; things that
appear to have been meant to have some function or other, but
don't.
Still, compromises and all, IMNSHO it's a great game world. ;-)
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Xocyll wrote:
>>
>> "Sarah" <scrub...@DELrogers.comDEL> looked up from reading the
>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>> >
>> >Yes, you can spend all you want and train in anything, but will you become
>> >an expert in everything just because you've got the money and time to train?
>> >No.
>>
>> If you want to you can. There are people who do get multiple degrees
>> from university and others who's level of skill in a hobby is
>> professional level.
>>
>> Consider the people who speak, read and write dozens of languages.
>
>How common are these kinds of talents? Extremely rare, I'd say.
>Most people have trouble attaining mastery in *one* field of
>endeavor.
Probably about the same level of rarity as the "HERO" of most fantasy or
heroic literature.
You aren't playing the part of "Joe the street sweeper" after all,
you're the HERO who must save the day from the ultimate EVIL.
>> You might also consider the Pioneer types of the not so distant past,
>> who might be skilled herders, skilled hunters, skilled woodworkers and
>> so on, because there was no one else to do it for them.
>
>Right, and they gained that skill by doing, not by training.
They were taught first.
>> Most people won't be expert at more than a couple things max, but there
>> are those who are expert in all kinds of things, just because they want
>> to be and they happen to have the resources to afford it.
>
>I think most people's dreams are limited by the talents
>nature endowed them with. Granted, in RPGs we expect those
>limits to be extended, but IMO we don't want them entirely
>removed. I prefer to retain a bit of reality in my fantasy;
>something to anchor myself while sojourning in strange worlds.
>YMMV
I don't see any skill in Morrowind as being outside the ability of most
people (well ok assuming that magic is real and can be taught).
I prefer a game where characters are people first and a member of Class
X second (if at all).
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>"Xocyll" <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote in message
>news:rsov30pop0vq66nvv...@4ax.com...
>
>> Oh I get where you're coming from, but it doesn't apply to Elder Scrolls
>games.
>
>If you'd gotten where I was coming from, you wouldn't have spent so much
>time explaining what 100 means, but I'll let it slide. ;-)
Well not quite. Until the last post you hadn't made clear that you were
looking at MW as though classes were a mold a character had to fit in.
Looking at MW as a freeform "classless" game, it does matter what 100
means, since being super genius at everything would be stupid and
totally unrealistic, but being competent at 30 skills isn't.
Looking at MW as though classes meant something than what 100 means is
irrelevant since your objection seems to be in learning anything that's
"non class" rather than how much they can known in each skill.
>> I'd have preferred if Morrowind had changed "class" titles based on
>> current skills the way Dungeon Siege did instead of staying fixed
>
>I agree. I understand what you're saying about skills defining your class,
>but it's not implemented that way in MW. If you check the character
>settings, the class at the beginning of the game is the same as that at the
>end of the game. Two characters can have identical skill levels and spell
>lists, but one will be a mage and the other a warrior. If the character
>class changed as the game progressed depending on what skills were
>developed, it would make more sense and would also alleviate the training
>problem somewhat. Though I still think there should be skill caps based on
>choices made during character creation and in game, otherwise everyone will
>be the same character class at the end. The fact that the chosen character
>class becomes meaningless and that all characters look the same at the end
>irritates me. YMMV, of course.
Well i'd say MW is implemented that way, it just doesn't change the
title.
You are your skills, regardless of your title, just like real life.
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:48:46 -0500, Briarroot <woo...@iwonantispam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> Shooting at a target will still give you practice and hone your skill,
>>> you don't only get better if you shoot at living things.
>>
>>Perhaps not, but it is consistent with the ethos of risk
>>versus reward that pervades most RPGs.
>>
>>
>>> Casting the spell is casting the spell, it doesn't matter what you shoot
>>> it at if it's just damage related.
>>> A fireball doesn't care if it hits an Orc or a rock or a tree, it's
>>> still a fireball doing X damage.
>>
>>Perhaps it could be said that the caster who has an Orc charging
>>at him swinging a large ax, gains a certain clarity of mind and
>>learns to concentrate and cast *quickly* ... or he dies. The same
>>could be said for melee weapons. Swinging at a training dummy is
>>a completely different thing than dodging, parrying and slashing at
>>someone who is trying to kill you.
>
>BINGO!!! The XP gained will, after all, be used to beat up even bigger
>monsters, open harder locks & disarm more dangerous traps - all done under
>duress in a dangerous situations usually. Thus, it makes more sense that for
>this type of crpg xp model you gain XP in the way which it costs you more or
>has inherent risk, to get better at harder & riskier endeavours. Anything
>else is so much slashing at straw dummies...;-)
You seem to be focussed entirely on combat and XP gain from combat.
Where's the danger in someone becoming more proficient in painting, or
cooking, or potion making or ... ?
Sure D&D boils down to killing things, picking locks and defusing traps,
but D&D is not all RPGs.
Your concentration might become better by doing something under duress,
but your actual skill isn't going to increase more because of it.
If you only got better by an actual fight, why do martial art forms have
KATA?
Wax on, wax off.
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Xocyll wrote:
>>
>> Briarroot <woo...@iwonantispam.com> looked up from reading the entrails
>> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>> >Xocyll wrote:
>> >>
>> >> That doesn't really make sense though.
>> >>
>> >> Shooting at a target will still give you practice and hone your skill,
>> >> you don't only get better if you shoot at living things.
>> >
>> >Perhaps not, but it is consistent with the ethos of risk
>> >versus reward that pervades most RPGs.
>>
>> But that "ethos of risk" is generally only there because almost all
>> "experience" is earned in some kind of conflict.
>
>I don't think that's true, I think the risk/reward system is the
>heart of role playing and not merely a game design criterion.
It's the heart of D&D rpgs, since they are based almost entirely around
killing things.
Surprise, surprise, D&D is not the only rpg system out there.
>> But we're talking about skills here, not experience.
>
>Yes, and skills are sharpened by the experience of using
>them. My point is that the act of using them in combat
>makes for *much* more concentration. The old adage that
>experience is the best teacher comes into play.
So your concentration skill might improve.
Shooting a gun at a head or a bullseye requires the same aiming skill.
If you don't have it you aren't going to hit no matter how much
"concentration" you have.
>> >> Casting the spell is casting the spell, it doesn't matter what you shoot
>> >> it at if it's just damage related.
>> >> A fireball doesn't care if it hits an Orc or a rock or a tree, it's
>> >> still a fireball doing X damage.
>> >
>> >Perhaps it could be said that the caster who has an Orc charging
>> >at him swinging a large ax, gains a certain clarity of mind and
>> >learns to concentrate and cast *quickly* ... or he dies. The same
>> >could be said for melee weapons. Swinging at a training dummy is
>> >a completely different thing than dodging, parrying and slashing at
>> >someone who is trying to kill you.
>>
>> True, but how is live practice different from a real fight, other than
>> in aim?
>>
>> People did tend to get trained in the use of a sword before they went
>> out and fought for real.
>
>And those who had fought and survived a thousand fights were
>far better at it than those who had never fought. Or don't
>you think nerves are a factor in performance? Combat veterans
>routinely outperform rookies, despite the amount of time the
>rookie has spent in training.
You are hung up on combat.
Are all the skills in Morrowind combat based? NO.
What relevancy does combat have to potion making?
A combat vet doesn't necessarily have any more raw skill, he just isn't
taking a penalty to using the skill from fear or distraction.
Take a locksmith who has never been in combat and a combat vet who has
never done more than jimmy a car door open.
Which one is going to open the chest with the highly intricate lock?
The locksmith might be distracted by the combat (and thus have less
_effective_ skill, but he has 100x or more the raw skill the combat vet
does.
Merely being in combat isn't going to give the vet any skill, he's just
not taking a penalty to his skill.
>> Or running by yourself vs in a marathon?
>> Or changing the oil filter in your car at home, vs doing it to a
>> customers car as a mechanic?
>>
>> Or a musician sitting at home practicing chords on his guitar.
>> He doesn't only get better in front of an audience, he gets better by
>> practice. Playing live might improve his _group_ playing skills and his
>> concentration and heckling resistance (and dodge skill if it's a rowdy
>> crowd), but the actual playing isn't going to get better any more or
>> less than when he was home alone.
>
>None of these activities are comparable with combat.
Wowie, really?
Maybe that's because i'm talking about SKILLS not combat.
Skills get better by being used.
>> Most things are _exactly_ the same skill regardless of where or how it's
>> being done.
>
>Most things maybe, (that's another debate for another day) but
>we're talking here about risking one's life. The threat of death
>has a marvelous way of *focusing* one's attention.
That's nice, but focussing your attention isn't going to GIVE you extra
skill.
You going to get a better score on your Calculus exam if you're under
fire?
Nostromo
No, I believe I mentioned lockpicking & trap disarming in the same sentence.
But any *challenging* skill/activity would do. It's the whole point of rpgs
isn't it? To do challenging but *fun* things we wouldn't dream of doing in
real life? Such as slashing at straw dummies or shooting paintballs at each
other ;-)
>Where's the danger in someone becoming more proficient in painting, or
>cooking, or potion making or ... ?
Just not my ideas of a good crpg...or fun...
>Sure D&D boils down to killing things, picking locks and defusing traps,
>but D&D is not all RPGs.
Fallout is one of the best. I never said quest rewards were out - but it's
all a common theme: give me XP, let ME cash it in how I want to develop a
character, because *I* can much better balance *my* char than some stoopid
algorithm that forces me to shoot spells at a wall for 3 hrs straight just
to have a chance of hitting the side of a barn when I step out into the real
(game) world.
>Your concentration might become better by doing something under duress,
>but your actual skill isn't going to increase more because of it.
I'm not asking for a learning sim. I just want a fun crpg. Back to 1sts
principles...;-)
>If you only got better by an actual fight, why do martial art forms have
>KATA?
>
>Wax on, wax off.
wax over & out...
--
Replace 'spamfree' with ('k__umcgl_' + ascii 123456789) to reply via email.
Nostromo
>>Yes, and skills are sharpened by the experience of using
>>them. My point is that the act of using them in combat
>>makes for *much* more concentration. The old adage that
>>experience is the best teacher comes into play.
>
>So your concentration skill might improve.
>
>Shooting a gun at a head or a bullseye requires the same aiming skill.
>
>If you don't have it you aren't going to hit no matter how much
>"concentration" you have.
Let's see how Mr king of the arcade gallery & gun club shoots when there are
hundreds of bullets ricocheting around his head, body parts flying, grenades
explodin & bombs going off! Not so well if it's his first time in the field
I'm tippin...better after a dozen similar xps...
Not always. Some are innate, some are just 'talented'. Sure, not all skills
are cross-compatible, but then again, I'm not after a sim, just a fun crpg.
>>> Most things are _exactly_ the same skill regardless of where or how it's
>>> being done.
>>
>>Most things maybe, (that's another debate for another day) but
>>we're talking here about risking one's life. The threat of death
>>has a marvelous way of *focusing* one's attention.
>
>That's nice, but focussing your attention isn't going to GIVE you extra
>skill.
>
>You going to get a better score on your Calculus exam if you're under
>fire?
I usually did! >;-p
Briarroot
>
> Briarroot <woo...@iwonantispam.com> looked up from reading the entrails
> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
> >Xocyll wrote:
> >>
> >> Briarroot <woo...@iwonantispam.com> looked up from reading the entrails
> >> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
> >>
> >> >Xocyll wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> That doesn't really make sense though.
> >> >>
> >> >> Shooting at a target will still give you practice and hone your skill,
> >> >> you don't only get better if you shoot at living things.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps not, but it is consistent with the ethos of risk
> >> >versus reward that pervades most RPGs.
> >>
> >> But that "ethos of risk" is generally only there because almost all
> >> "experience" is earned in some kind of conflict.
> >
> >I don't think that's true, I think the risk/reward system is the
> >heart of role playing and not merely a game design criterion.
>
> It's the heart of D&D rpgs, since they are based almost entirely around
> killing things.
> Surprise, surprise, D&D is not the only rpg system out there.
Right, and we're talking about Morrowind's skill system here,
not D&D. Maintain your focus... or is there an orc bearing
down on you with a huge ax?
> >> But we're talking about skills here, not experience.
> >
> >Yes, and skills are sharpened by the experience of using
> >them. My point is that the act of using them in combat
> >makes for *much* more concentration. The old adage that
> >experience is the best teacher comes into play.
>
> So your concentration skill might improve.
Tripe. You just don't get it, or are deliberately avoiding
looking at it. Skills improve with improved concentration.
> Shooting a gun at a head or a bullseye requires the same aiming skill.
>
> If you don't have it you aren't going to hit no matter how much
> "concentration" you have.
There is more involved than mere "aiming skill." Steadiness
of hand, controlling one's nerves, and confidence in one's
ability to withstand stress in life threatening situations
are not gained on the target range.
> >> True, but how is live practice different from a real fight, other than
> >> in aim?
> >>
> >> People did tend to get trained in the use of a sword before they went
> >> out and fought for real.
> >
> >And those who had fought and survived a thousand fights were
> >far better at it than those who had never fought. Or don't
> >you think nerves are a factor in performance? Combat veterans
> >routinely outperform rookies, despite the amount of time the
> >rookie has spent in training.
>
> You are hung up on combat.
Wait a minute! You just said:
> It's the heart of D&D rpgs, since they are based almost entirely around
> killing things.
> Surprise, surprise, D&D is not the only rpg system out there.
Now you're changing your tune; twisting away from the main point.
To repeat: Skills should not be *trainable* to the Master level,
which they are in Morrowind, and which I perceive to be a flaw
in the design of the game. Let's keep that clear, shall we?
> Are all the skills in Morrowind combat based? NO.
> What relevancy does combat have to potion making?
>
> A combat vet doesn't necessarily have any more raw skill, he just isn't
> taking a penalty to using the skill from fear or distraction.
>
> Take a locksmith who has never been in combat and a combat vet who has
> never done more than jimmy a car door open.
>
> Which one is going to open the chest with the highly intricate lock?
> The locksmith might be distracted by the combat (and thus have less
> _effective_ skill, but he has 100x or more the raw skill the combat vet
> does.
> Merely being in combat isn't going to give the vet any skill, he's just
> not taking a penalty to his skill.
You're trying to say that a Master chef (note: non-combat skill) with
years of experience, and numerous awards for excellence can *train* a
raw student to a level of competence equal to his own. No way.
> >> Or running by yourself vs in a marathon?
> >> Or changing the oil filter in your car at home, vs doing it to a
> >> customers car as a mechanic?
> >>
> >> Or a musician sitting at home practicing chords on his guitar.
> >> He doesn't only get better in front of an audience, he gets better by
> >> practice. Playing live might improve his _group_ playing skills and his
> >> concentration and heckling resistance (and dodge skill if it's a rowdy
> >> crowd), but the actual playing isn't going to get better any more or
> >> less than when he was home alone.
> >
> >None of these activities are comparable with combat.
>
> Wowie, really?
> Maybe that's because i'm talking about SKILLS not combat.
Wait a minute! You just said:
> It's the heart of D&D rpgs, since they are based almost entirely around
> killing things.
> Surprise, surprise, D&D is not the only rpg system out there.
> Skills get better by being used.
So now you're agreeing with me. I wish, you'd stick to one side
of the argument. Such twisting back and forth is embarrassing! ;-)
But I'm glad you've finally seen the light. Training can't improve
skills beyond the competent level. Mastery requires use; and *much*
experience.
> >> Most things are _exactly_ the same skill regardless of where or how it's
> >> being done.
> >
> >Most things maybe, (that's another debate for another day) but
> >we're talking here about risking one's life. The threat of death
> >has a marvelous way of *focusing* one's attention.
>
> That's nice, but focussing your attention isn't going to GIVE you extra
> skill.
>
> You going to get a better score on your Calculus exam if you're under
> fire?
If you're an artilleryman, who *needs* calculus to do his job,
then you're damn sure going to get better much more quickly by
being under fire. Or you'll be dead.
Sarah
> "Sarah" <scrub...@DELrogers.comDEL> looked up from reading the
> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
> say:
>
> >"Xocyll" <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote in message
> >news:rsov30pop0vq66nvv...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Oh I get where you're coming from, but it doesn't apply to Elder
Scrolls
> >games.
> >
> >If you'd gotten where I was coming from, you wouldn't have spent so much
> >time explaining what 100 means, but I'll let it slide. ;-)
>
> Well not quite. Until the last post you hadn't made clear that you were
> looking at MW as though classes were a mold a character had to fit in.
That's not what I've been saying. For me, characters are a certain class
due to their innate aptitudes for certain skills and innate ineptness for
others, a view that I've made fairly clear in my posts. So for me, the
character does define the class and not the other way around.
I did, however, state clearly in my post that what 100 mean is irrelevant to
what I was trying to say, after which you spent a great deal of time
explaining what 100 means. I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been
that it didn't matter, but anyway.
We differ on how we view the classes and how well we think this particular
aspect of Morrowind was implemented. There's room for both interpretations.
Let's leave it at that.
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Xocyll wrote:
>>
>> Briarroot <woo...@iwonantispam.com> looked up from reading the entrails
>> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>> >Xocyll wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Briarroot <woo...@iwonantispam.com> looked up from reading the entrails
>> >> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>> >>
>> >> >Xocyll wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That doesn't really make sense though.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Shooting at a target will still give you practice and hone your skill,
>> >> >> you don't only get better if you shoot at living things.
>> >> >
>> >> >Perhaps not, but it is consistent with the ethos of risk
>> >> >versus reward that pervades most RPGs.
>> >>
>> >> But that "ethos of risk" is generally only there because almost all
>> >> "experience" is earned in some kind of conflict.
>> >
>> >I don't think that's true, I think the risk/reward system is the
>> >heart of role playing and not merely a game design criterion.
>>
>> It's the heart of D&D rpgs, since they are based almost entirely around
>> killing things.
>> Surprise, surprise, D&D is not the only rpg system out there.
>
>Right, and we're talking about Morrowind's skill system here,
>not D&D. Maintain your focus... or is there an orc bearing
>down on you with a huge ax?
Exactly my point. In Morrowind there is no "experience", there is no
Combat-only gains.
There's only skill usage and practice and you don't _ever_ need to be in
combat to improve a skill.
>> >> But we're talking about skills here, not experience.
>> >
>> >Yes, and skills are sharpened by the experience of using
>> >them. My point is that the act of using them in combat
>> >makes for *much* more concentration. The old adage that
>> >experience is the best teacher comes into play.
>>
>> So your concentration skill might improve.
>
>Tripe. You just don't get it, or are deliberately avoiding
>looking at it. Skills improve with improved concentration.
No you aren't getting it. Combat is irrelevant, the ONLY thing that
matters is practice.
>> Shooting a gun at a head or a bullseye requires the same aiming skill.
>>
>> If you don't have it you aren't going to hit no matter how much
>> "concentration" you have.
>
>There is more involved than mere "aiming skill." Steadiness
>of hand, controlling one's nerves, and confidence in one's
>ability to withstand stress in life threatening situations
>are not gained on the target range.
Who is going to make the hit.
The guy who has practiced until he can hit the bullseye at 500 yards
every time, or the guy who did basic training?
"In Combat" doesn't necessarily mean you're right up close to the
combat.
A sniper isn't in a life threatening situation (not his life anyway)
when he's picking off someone a few hundred yards away, the only thing
of relevance is his aiming skill.
>> >> True, but how is live practice different from a real fight, other than
>> >> in aim?
>> >>
>> >> People did tend to get trained in the use of a sword before they went
>> >> out and fought for real.
>> >
>> >And those who had fought and survived a thousand fights were
>> >far better at it than those who had never fought. Or don't
>> >you think nerves are a factor in performance? Combat veterans
>> >routinely outperform rookies, despite the amount of time the
>> >rookie has spent in training.
>>
>> You are hung up on combat.
>
>Wait a minute! You just said:
>> It's the heart of D&D rpgs, since they are based almost entirely around
>> killing things.
>> Surprise, surprise, D&D is not the only rpg system out there.
>
Why yes I did, because you said
">> >None of these activities are comparable with combat."
You're the one hung up on combat, when it has ZERO relevance to skill
improvements.
>Now you're changing your tune; twisting away from the main point.
>To repeat: Skills should not be *trainable* to the Master level,
>which they are in Morrowind, and which I perceive to be a flaw
>in the design of the game. Let's keep that clear, shall we?
No i'm not, I'm saying COMBAT IS IRRELEVANT IN MORROWIND!
It's not D&D where you can only get experience by killing things, it's a
skill based system not an experience based system.
What did I say originally?
A fireball doesn't care if it's hitting a rock or an Orc.
Skill gain isn't tied to what's being shot at because it's totally
irrelevant.
The only skill gain is from practicing the movements and/or verbal
components to cast the fireball.
You get better at cooking bacon, by cooking bacon.
It doesn't matter if you're going to serve the bacon to royalty, or
throw it in the garbage, it's the act of cooking it that's relevant to
skill increase, not the bacon's destination.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, there's no evidence that skills are
trainable to "MASTER LEVEL".
100 does not equal "master", for proof examine the enchanting skill.
Can you at 100 skill enchant a constant effect item 100% of the time?
NO.
Can the NPC enchanters enchant a constant effect item 100% of the time.
YES.
Ergo they have more skill than you do, you can't reach "mastery".
Are there items in the game that are _WELL_ beyond anything you could
enchant?
YES.
Ergo someone out there has more skill than you can achieve in the game.
Do some experimentation and see what skill level of enchant you have to
have in order to create a constant effect item with no failures.
Then you'll know where "Master level" is.
I remember someone doing exactly that experiment when Morrowind was new
- and it was 300 or 500 before enchanting CE items was no fail.
That puts 100 skill _WELL_ down from mastery.
>> Are all the skills in Morrowind combat based? NO.
>> What relevancy does combat have to potion making?
>>
>> A combat vet doesn't necessarily have any more raw skill, he just isn't
>> taking a penalty to using the skill from fear or distraction.
>>
>> Take a locksmith who has never been in combat and a combat vet who has
>> never done more than jimmy a car door open.
>>
>> Which one is going to open the chest with the highly intricate lock?
>> The locksmith might be distracted by the combat (and thus have less
>> _effective_ skill, but he has 100x or more the raw skill the combat vet
>> does.
>> Merely being in combat isn't going to give the vet any skill, he's just
>> not taking a penalty to his skill.
>
>You're trying to say that a Master chef (note: non-combat skill) with
>years of experience, and numerous awards for excellence can *train* a
>raw student to a level of competence equal to his own. No way.
What do you think Chef schools do?
And once again, you are hung up on 100 skill = mastery.
It isn't, it's competence.
100 is simply as high as you are going to be able to train a skill in
the time frame available in the game.
It's no different than level or experience caps in other games.
100 skill is not 100% skill.
>> >> Or running by yourself vs in a marathon?
>> >> Or changing the oil filter in your car at home, vs doing it to a
>> >> customers car as a mechanic?
>> >>
>> >> Or a musician sitting at home practicing chords on his guitar.
>> >> He doesn't only get better in front of an audience, he gets better by
>> >> practice. Playing live might improve his _group_ playing skills and his
>> >> concentration and heckling resistance (and dodge skill if it's a rowdy
>> >> crowd), but the actual playing isn't going to get better any more or
>> >> less than when he was home alone.
>> >
>> >None of these activities are comparable with combat.
>>
>> Wowie, really?
>> Maybe that's because i'm talking about SKILLS not combat.
>
>Wait a minute! You just said:
>
>> It's the heart of D&D rpgs, since they are based almost entirely around
>> killing things.
>> Surprise, surprise, D&D is not the only rpg system out there.
>
>> Skills get better by being used.
>
>So now you're agreeing with me. I wish, you'd stick to one side
>of the argument. Such twisting back and forth is embarrassing! ;-)
>But I'm glad you've finally seen the light. Training can't improve
>skills beyond the competent level. Mastery requires use; and *much*
>experience.
I have said constantly Morrowind is skills based not experience based.
Combat is irrelevant.
D&D was brought up only to illustrate a system where combat = experience
= skill upgrades, a system Morrowind doesn't use, but people keep trying
to force on it.
100 IS COMPETANCY, not mastery.
If 100 was the maximum skill than you couldn't ever go above 100 with
spells or items since you'd already be at "maximum skill".
You can't get better than perfect.
Briarroot
>
> Briarroot <woo...@iwonantispam.com> looked up from reading the entrails
> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
> >
> >not D&D. Maintain your focus... or is there an orc bearing
> >down on you with a huge ax?
>
> Exactly my point. In Morrowind there is no "experience", there is no
> Combat-only gains.
What do you mean, *your* point? It was my point, not yours.
I was commenting on those aspects of Morrowind that I liked
least.
> There's only skill usage and practice and you don't _ever_ need to be in
> combat to improve a skill.
Right, and that's what I objected to. You're confused.
> >> So your concentration skill might improve.
> >
> >Tripe. You just don't get it, or are deliberately avoiding
> >looking at it. Skills improve with improved concentration.
>
> No you aren't getting it. Combat is irrelevant, the ONLY thing that
> matters is practice.
And that's *wrong* That's what I was criticizing.
> >> Shooting a gun at a head or a bullseye requires the same aiming skill.
> >>
> >> If you don't have it you aren't going to hit no matter how much
> >> "concentration" you have.
> >
> >There is more involved than mere "aiming skill." Steadiness
> >of hand, controlling one's nerves, and confidence in one's
> >ability to withstand stress in life threatening situations
> >are not gained on the target range.
>
> Who is going to make the hit.
> The guy who has practiced until he can hit the bullseye at 500 yards
> every time, or the guy who did basic training?
You are truly confused.
> "In Combat" doesn't necessarily mean you're right up close to the
> combat.
ditto
> A sniper isn't in a life threatening situation (not his life anyway)
> when he's picking off someone a few hundred yards away, the only thing
> of relevance is his aiming skill.
You need to do some research!
> >Wait a minute! You just said:
> >> It's the heart of D&D rpgs, since they are based almost entirely around
> >> killing things.
> >> Surprise, surprise, D&D is not the only rpg system out there.
> >
> Why yes I did, because you said
> ">> >None of these activities are comparable with combat."
>
> You're the one hung up on combat, when it has ZERO relevance to skill
> improvements.
Right, you dolt! That's what I was complaining about!
> >Now you're changing your tune; twisting away from the main point.
> >To repeat: Skills should not be *trainable* to the Master level,
> >which they are in Morrowind, and which I perceive to be a flaw
> >in the design of the game. Let's keep that clear, shall we?
>
> No i'm not, I'm saying COMBAT IS IRRELEVANT IN MORROWIND!
Which is one of the things I said was wrong with MW. Sheesh!
> It's not D&D where you can only get experience by killing things, it's a
> skill based system not an experience based system.
>
> What did I say originally?
> A fireball doesn't care if it's hitting a rock or an Orc.
Which is stupid. We're talking about the caster, not the
fireball. The caster should *benefit* from the experience
of combat *more* than he would from practicing. MW doesn't
handle this properly and that's what I complained about.
It is *your* simple minded conjecture, which appears to me
to be totally divorced from the real world, that training is
the exact equivalent of practical experience. I am contending
that it is not. Thus far, you've offered not a single relevant
argument to back up your theory.
> Skill gain isn't tied to what's being shot at because it's totally
> irrelevant.
It *shouldn't* be. Clearly, you have lost all sense of what
you and I have been arguing about!
> The only skill gain is from practicing the movements and/or verbal
> components to cast the fireball.
Which is *wrong*
> You get better at cooking bacon, by cooking bacon.
Nonsense. Obviously, you can't cook.
> It doesn't matter if you're going to serve the bacon to royalty, or
> throw it in the garbage, it's the act of cooking it that's relevant to
> skill increase, not the bacon's destination.
LOL, you're *really* lost the thread with this tripe!
> As I said elsewhere in this thread, there's no evidence that skills are
> trainable to "MASTER LEVEL".
You were wrong when you originally said it, and you're still
wrong. 100 *does* equal mastery.
> 100 does not equal "master", for proof examine the enchanting skill.
>
> Can you at 100 skill enchant a constant effect item 100% of the time?
> NO.
> Can the NPC enchanters enchant a constant effect item 100% of the time.
> YES.
> Ergo they have more skill than you do, you can't reach "mastery".
ROFL That is *not* proof. You have equated mastery with perfection,
which is simply not the case. Masters still make mistakes, masters
don't always succeed, they just succeed much more often than amateurs.
> That puts 100 skill _WELL_ down from mastery.
You don't know what you're talking about. Mastery does not equal
perfection.
> >> Are all the skills in Morrowind combat based? NO.
> >> What relevancy does combat have to potion making?
> >>
> >> A combat vet doesn't necessarily have any more raw skill, he just isn't
> >> taking a penalty to using the skill from fear or distraction.
> >>
> >> Take a locksmith who has never been in combat and a combat vet who has
> >> never done more than jimmy a car door open.
> >>
> >> Which one is going to open the chest with the highly intricate lock?
> >> The locksmith might be distracted by the combat (and thus have less
> >> _effective_ skill, but he has 100x or more the raw skill the combat vet
> >> does.
> >> Merely being in combat isn't going to give the vet any skill, he's just
> >> not taking a penalty to his skill.
> >
> >You're trying to say that a Master chef (note: non-combat skill) with
> >years of experience, and numerous awards for excellence can *train* a
> >raw student to a level of competence equal to his own. No way.
>
> What do you think Chef schools do?
They train people to *begin* the journey to master chef, they
don't crank out Master Chefs.
> >> Skills get better by being used.
> >
> >So now you're agreeing with me. I wish, you'd stick to one side
> >of the argument. Such twisting back and forth is embarrassing! ;-)
> >But I'm glad you've finally seen the light. Training can't improve
> >skills beyond the competent level. Mastery requires use; and *much*
> >experience.
>
> I have said constantly Morrowind is skills based not experience based.
> Combat is irrelevant.
And I have said constantly that it *should* be. That was the
original objection that I voiced. You've completely lost the
thread here.
> D&D was brought up only to illustrate a system where combat = experience
> = skill upgrades, a system Morrowind doesn't use, but people keep trying
> to force on it.
>
> 100 IS COMPETANCY, not mastery.
Wrong. 100 is master, but mastery is not perfection.
> If 100 was the maximum skill than you couldn't ever go above 100 with
> spells or items since you'd already be at "maximum skill".
Again, you've equated 100 with perfection, which no one else has
ever posited.
> You can't get better than perfect.
In MW, 100 = Mastery, but Mastery is not the same thing as
perfection.
You have become totally confused in this thread. LOL
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
So your entire argument boils down to "Morrowind isn't experience based,
but you think it should be."
If you don't like skill based games, why the hell did you buy it?
If you want gains only available by combat stick with D&D.
Those of us that like a system where skills improve by practice, just as
they do in real life, will continue to play skill based systems like
Morrowind.
BC
> Briarroot <woo...@iwonantispam.com> looked up from reading the entrails
> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
> >> Shooting a gun at a head or a bullseye requires the same aiming skill.
> >>
> >> If you don't have it you aren't going to hit no matter how much
> >> "concentration" you have.
> >
> >There is more involved than mere "aiming skill." Steadiness
> >of hand, controlling one's nerves, and confidence in one's
> >ability to withstand stress in life threatening situations
> >are not gained on the target range.
>
> Who is going to make the hit.
> The guy who has practiced until he can hit the bullseye at 500 yards
> every time, or the guy who did basic training?
well depends. a guy who has "practiced" but has never been in the field,
and faints at the sght of blood... Or a guy (who has been through basic
training) whose life and family's been threatened, and he has one shot
(literally) to bring down the big bad before his only daughter gets raped
and killed? it's all relative.
> "In Combat" doesn't necessarily mean you're right up close to the
> combat.
>
> A sniper isn't in a life threatening situation (not his life anyway)
> when he's picking off someone a few hundred yards away, the only thing
> of relevance is his aiming skill.
well, like the previous guy says it's more than just aiming skills. What if
the sniper has never killed before and can't find the nerves to go through
with it? what if he's afriad of being caught, and can't concentrate on his
aim? what if he's a great aim, but shite at using guns, or have no brains
and chose the wrong gun for a job (eg. a shotgun instead of a sniper rifle)?
what if he's only got one bullet left and can only take one person down -
which one would he choose? The man who's about to kill one of his team
mates, or the person who's about to shoot down the helicopter that's coming
in to rescue you? What if he panics and can't choose?
> You get better at cooking bacon, by cooking bacon.
> It doesn't matter if you're going to serve the bacon to royalty, or
> throw it in the garbage, it's the act of cooking it that's relevant to
> skill increase, not the bacon's destination.
well how do you become a better cook if you don't taste the bacon or serve
it to someone else, someone who could tell you how well you've done and give
you pointers? You could cook tons of bacon, chuck them all in the bin and
still be crap at cooking bacon... it's not just about skills, but
experience and other factors as well. Who knows, maybe all these years
you've thinking that your bacon's perfect, when in fact it's raw on one end
and burnt on the other...
(I'll shut up now)
<=[BC]=>
Briarroot
>
> Briarroot <woo...@iwonantispam.com> looked up from reading the entrails
> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
> <snip>
>
> So your entire argument boils down to "Morrowind isn't experience based,
> but you think it should be."
>
> If you don't like skill based games, why the hell did you buy it?
You jumped into an ongoing conversation without a clue
as to what was being discussed, introduced a silly idea
and then defended it poorly. Why the hell did you do it?
Note for the pedantic: that was a rhetorical question!
"What a maroon!" -- Bugs Bunny
Basilisk
> Damien Neil wrote:
> >
> > In article <403F0EED...@iwonantispam.com>, Briarroot
> > <woo...@iwonantispam.com> wrote:
> > > Ok, why do you suppose that system has not been
> > > repeatedly copied by every developer since then?
> >
> > I'd love to know!
> >
> > Even in those days, Ultima was always a cut above the competition in
> > terms of character and world interaction. The style peaked in
> > Ultima VII, where you could famously do anything and everything
> > including bake bread.
> >
> > Nobody seems to have attempted to follow in their footsteps. Morrowind
> > does come close in terms of world detail--the intricate environments
> > constructed of common elements reused well (bookcases, plates, knives,
> > etc.) reminds me strongly of the style of the Ultimas. They left out
> > the environmental interactivity of U7, of course, but I can't view that
> > as a tremendous loss. Baking bread is fun, but it isn't the core of
> > the game.
> >
> > Nobody seems to script NPCs to act out the motions of living.
Your hope is rich f*cks like me who are just as interested in RPGs as
you are. I'm very interested in making an RPG financed with my own $,
based on my own personal vision (which is similar to yours, from what
I've seen so far). I've been looking for a game engine that 1)
supports mounts, 2) supports reflections and see-thru windows, 3)
makes full use of hyperthreading (believe me, a game this detailed
will need it), 4) supports a BIG map without dividing it up in closed
cells like Morrowind does, and 5) is compatible with 3ds max,
AI.implant (and all functions thereof).
If anyone knows of such a game engine, let me know! I don't think
Gamebryo qualifies, based on what I've seen of it. And of Morrowind,
which uses that engine.