Skills based systems abuse
Shawn L. Baird
skills based systems. First of all, although I find these methods have some
validity, I have some further observations. What the author of the previous
post mentioned (a fixed rate at which a skill may increase and the requirement
of rolling above the current skill value to advance) was what first occurred
to me when I began the design of a skills based system.
However, the inherent problem with this is that, while it does slow
skill development to a reasonable rate, it doesn't really address the abuse
problem. A person with a dedicated client can still advance by simply using
a skill over and over. On top of this, they can advance at the same rate as
normal players (thus all players are penalized, not really just abusers).
This may or may not be valid in slowing down the rate at which skills
increase, but really doesn't bear upon people using clients/robots/patience
who would simply sit around using a skill over and over.
The following method is one which I have been ruminating over for a
while. It is something that inherently makes sense, and thus doesn't always
stick immediately out as an issue to be dealt with. The fact is that in
learning a skill you progress from problems of basic difficulty to problems
of intermediate difficulty and then complex difficulty. I propose that a
skills system designed to prevent abuse by simple clients/robots would factor
in the difficulty involved in the use of the skill and use that to judge
whether or not any advance at all should occur. Thus, one would at some
point be unable to continue learning to pick locks on a simple, unintricate
mechanism, for example.
The mechanics behind this don't really matter. What matters is the idea
that in order to become more proficient in a skill one must attempt more and
more difficult uses of that skill. Also, if you have areas where you can
train and build up your skills by doing so, it would be wise to attach a
maximum to which a skill can be developed through training, with the rest
being required to learn via actual experience.
| bai...@eecs.ee.pdx.edu |
| I think I am right, therefore I am right. |
Jamieson Norrish
Earlier someone posted an article about some methods of avoiding
abuse of skills based systems. First of all, although I find these
methods have some validity, I have some further observations.
[Snip.]
True, this is a problem with the system I proposed. However, this is
alleviated slightly by allowing only one check at advance every 6
hours or so. Thus, continually using a skill won't do much good - it
only needs to be used successfully once every six hours for it to
advance at maximum rate.
The following method is one which I have been ruminating over for a
while.
[Idea that it require increasing difficulty to get better deleted.]
In my the system I am developing, this is accounted for. Modifiers on
the task are used as modifiers to how much the skill advances. A
positive modifier decreases the amount, a negative one increases it.
Since the basic advance is 1-2 (on a 0-100 scale), and everything is
rounded down, this will rarely result in an increase, but a positive
modifier of any sort will result in an advance of only 0-1 - that is,
even if the advance check succeeds, it is entirely possible for no
increase to occur.
more difficult uses of that skill. Also, if you have areas where you can
train and build up your skills by doing so, it would be wise to attach a
maximum to which a skill can be developed through training, with the rest
being required to learn via actual experience.
Yes, I have this also - the trainer must have a skill of 45 or
greater, the trainee must be 15 or lower in the skill than the
trainer, and training may not increase a skill above 40 (or
thereabouts).
So is there anything I've missed out?
Jamie
Niilo Neuvo
> True, this is a problem with the system I proposed. However, this is
> alleviated slightly by allowing only one check at advance every 6
> hours or so. Thus, continually using a skill won't do much good - it
> only needs to be used successfully once every six hours for it to
> advance at maximum rate.
So this means that you must play for 1 hour every 6 hours? And playing
continiously for 6 hours is mindless, as you really can't advance!
Players will eventually notice this.
> The following method is one which I have been ruminating over for a
> while.
> [Idea that it require increasing difficulty to get better deleted.]
> In my the system I am developing, this is accounted for. Modifiers on
> the task are used as modifiers to how much the skill advances. A
> positive modifier decreases the amount, a negative one increases it.
> Since the basic advance is 1-2 (on a 0-100 scale), and everything is
> rounded down, this will rarely result in an increase, but a positive
> modifier of any sort will result in an advance of only 0-1 - that is,
> even if the advance check succeeds, it is entirely possible for no
> increase to occur.
12 hours for 1%, that would mean that 50% would take about 25 days.
That is ridiculously slow.
Instead of having the standard 6 hours you should change it to depend
on the skill%. So that the leap from 9% to 10% could take 15 mins and
95% to 96% could take the six hours. A system like this would result
in players having all skills but at rather low percentile, dunno if
that is good thou.
++Anipa
--
NN NN NN NN NNNNNNNN
NNNN N NN N NNNNNN
NNNNNN N NN N NNNN
NNNNNNNN NN NN NN NN
Dan Brumleve
While adding a skill-based system to Armageddon (inspired by all the recent
posts on the subject), I encountered lots of abuse. What I did is record
the time the player last gained in a skill, and the player is unable to
gain again until 20 minutes after that time. That's about the rate that
ordinary usage of the skill would cause it to increase anyway, so clients
don't really help.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Brumleve ---> brum...@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu, brum...@imsa.edu
"Look ma, I made a .signature!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamieson Norrish
(Niilo Neuvo) writes:
So this means that you must play for 1 hour every 6 hours? And playing
continiously for 6 hours is mindless, as you really can't advance!
Players will eventually notice this.
These 6 hour periods are individual; that is, every 6 hours that your
character is logged on. Also, perhaps more importantly, is that there
is no goal to get to by advancement, unless it is a character-based
one. You won't get to be a wiz by maxing in a skill or two. I don't
play MU*s just so that artificial numbers assigned to my character
will get higher, and I don't want to foster that attitude in my game.
Players who want to have get-rich-quick characters can go play an lp.
12 hours for 1%, that would mean that 50% would take about 25 days.
That is ridiculously slow.
Is it? Based on what? As I say above, I am not designing a system to
accomodate gamers who are just interested in "advancement". And people
do not become great at things overnight.
Instead of having the standard 6 hours you should change it to depend
on the skill%. So that the leap from 9% to 10% could take 15 mins and
95% to 96% could take the six hours. A system like this would result
in players having all skills but at rather low percentile, dunno if
that is good thou.
This already happens, in the form of the advancement check (%roll must
be over skill level to advance). This ensures that those with low
skill, while not succeeding often, will most likely advance when they
do succeed, whereas those who succeed all the time won't advance as
quickly. The six hour period is there to prevent abuse and slow
advancement rates down.
Jamie
Scott D Anderson
[...]
> The following method is one which I have been ruminating over for a
>while. It is something that inherently makes sense, and thus doesn't always
>stick immediately out as an issue to be dealt with. The fact is that in
>learning a skill you progress from problems of basic difficulty to problems
>of intermediate difficulty and then complex difficulty. I propose that a
>skills system designed to prevent abuse by simple clients/robots would factor
>in the difficulty involved in the use of the skill and use that to judge
>whether or not any advance at all should occur. Thus, one would at some
>point be unable to continue learning to pick locks on a simple, unintricate
>mechanism, for example.
> The mechanics behind this don't really matter. What matters is the idea
>that in order to become more proficient in a skill one must attempt more and
>more difficult uses of that skill. Also, if you have areas where you can
>train and build up your skills by doing so, it would be wise to attach a
>maximum to which a skill can be developed through training, with the rest
>being required to learn via actual experience.
>
GodNet has had this system for some time now. I wrote it in from the beginning
to attempt to combat such abuses, however, we still had problems with
auto-clients and the like. The problem was that the gain in skills was
somewhat random, based on the difficulty, etc., so even players with
high skills had a (very small) chance to gain skill by doing something
simple. The obvious solution would be to provide for some ceiling beyond
which the simple task will not ever increase a skill... never got around to
that tho.
GodNet is reopening after a few months of downtime... it is at:
morticia.cnns.unt.edu 7777
I am Baalzebub... if you have questions on our rpg, look me up, or
talk to Malraux or Eris as well.
-Baal
>| bai...@eecs.ee.pdx.edu |
>| I think I am right, therefore I am right. |
--
CHOOSE CHEAP Scott Anderson
TWO: / \ san...@engin.umich.edu
/ \ Entropy at its finest:
FAST---------GOOD "Spam, spam, spam! Wonderful SPAM!"
Stephen P. Potter
>These 6 hour periods are individual; that is, every 6 hours that your
>character is logged on.
So, in other words, you have not solved the problem in question. A person
using a robot or client can still abuse the system by going up in levels
faster than a regular player. Looks to me like your system still needs work.
> 12 hours for 1%, that would mean that 50% would take about 25 days.
> That is ridiculously slow.
>
>Is it? Based on what? As I say above, I am not designing a system to
>accomodate gamers who are just interested in "advancement". And people
>do not become great at things overnight.
>
I have to agree that I do not think this is overly long. With few exceptions,
the people that have played on my MUD and on SillyMUD (where I am a high level
god) usually take about three or four months of hard playing to get to the
top levels. This is one month to get half way. I might even say this is a
little low.
>This already happens, in the form of the advancement check (%roll must
>be over skill level to advance). This ensures that those with low
>skill, while not succeeding often, will most likely advance when they
>do succeed, whereas those who succeed all the time won't advance as
>quickly. The six hour period is there to prevent abuse and slow
>advancement rates down.
>
So, you are one of those that says you don't learn from mistakes? Is it
possible in your system to gain by failing a skill?
--
cccc i ssss University of Florida Computer and Information Sciences
c s Unix Consulting Staff (904) 392-1183 E309A
c i ssss Email: s...@ufl.edu, s...@cis.ufl.edu,
c i s u493...@elm.circa.ufl.edu, PRIS...@MAPLE.circa.ufl.edu cccc i ssss PRIS...@ufcc.ufl.edu, Bitnet: PRISONER@ufcc
Jamieson Norrish
(Stephen P. Potter) writes:
>These 6 hour periods are individual; that is, every 6 hours that your
>character is logged on.
So, in other words, you have not solved the problem in question. A
person using a robot or client can still abuse the system by going
up in levels faster than a regular player. Looks to me like your
system still needs work.
If they are logged on continuously, yes. However, all it takes is one
success every six hours, and that's as fast as *anyone* can go up,
robot or normal character. And of course, it's a fairly simple matter
to do something about specific cases of abuse where they are spotted.
> 12 hours for 1%, that would mean that 50% would take about 25 days.
> That is ridiculously slow.
>
>Is it? Based on what? As I say above, I am not designing a system to
>accomodate gamers who are just interested in "advancement". And people
>do not become great at things overnight.
I have to agree that I do not think this is overly long. With few
exceptions, the people that have played on my MUD and on SillyMUD
(where I am a high level god) usually take about three or four
months of hard playing to get to the top levels. This is one month
to get half way. I might even say this is a little low.
There is also a big difference between a MUD, and the game I am
developing. There is no need at all to become better at your skills. I
couldn't care less if someone spent hundreds of hours getting all
their skills up into the 90s. It wouldn't make him into any sort of
supercharacter who could "take on" the world, and it certainly
wouldn't let them become a wizard. The granting of wizardships, if it
happens at all, will be based on no set criteria, but rather decided
on an individual basis. I want to move completely away from the idea
that this is a game to be "won" by becoming a wizard. Being a player
is not some lowly stage before you get onto the fun part; being a
player should be everything.
So, you are one of those that says you don't learn from mistakes? Is it
possible in your system to gain by failing a skill?
Of course you learn from mistakes, and this system reflects it too!
After failing many times, you eventually succeed. That success is a
direct result of spending all that time failing. Does that satisfy
you? :-)
Jamie
Stephen P. Potter
>success every six hours, and that's as fast as *anyone* can go up,
>robot or normal character. And of course, it's a fairly simple matter
>to do something about specific cases of abuse where they are spotted.
They were looking for a way to stop people from abusing the system in the code,
not where the wizard will have to come into it.
>There is also a big difference between a MUD, and the game I am
>developing. There is no need at all to become better at your skills. I
Then, what pray tell is the point of your game? The point of all games is to
either win or get better. What is the point of your game?
>wouldn't let them become a wizard. The granting of wizardships, if it
>happens at all, will be based on no set criteria, but rather decided
>on an individual basis. I want to move completely away from the idea
Oh no. Cries of favouritism are already echoing in the distance. I've seen
this before. I've had this problem before of people complaining "He's only
a wizard because... a) he's your roommate, b) he's your bestfriend, c) he's
local and I'm not (a major problem on Silly at one time... not that it was true,
but this is what people claimed), d) all the above, etc, etc.
>that this is a game to be "won" by becoming a wizard. Being a player
>is not some lowly stage before you get onto the fun part; being a
>player should be everything.
Being a player should be and is the majority of the game. Becoming a wizard
is a reward for good playing and a seperate part of the game.
>Of course you learn from mistakes, and this system reflects it too!
>After failing many times, you eventually succeed. That success is a
>direct result of spending all that time failing. Does that satisfy
>you? :-)
>
Well, not really ;)
Steve
Jamieson Norrish
(Stephen P. Potter) writes:
Not trying to downgrade you or your system, but you missed the
entire point. They were looking for a way to stop people from
abusing the system in the code, not where the wizard will have to
come into it.
Well, actually, it was *I* who restarted this thread, asking for ways
to cut abuse specifically in my system. However, it seems that I'm the
only one coming up with suggestions! As for the above point, I think
that the code as it stands does cut out most abuse, and that die-hard
powergamers can be dealt with on an individual. But if you have a
better, non-arbitrary, way of doing it with code, then go ahead and
tell me.
>There is also a big difference between a MUD, and the game I am
>developing. There is no need at all to become better at your skills. I
Then, what pray tell is the point of your game? The point of all
games is to either win or get better. What is the point of your
game?
Whoa! That's the first I've heard about this! I always figured that
most people played games because they were fun. If people want to play
simply so that they can become a wizard, then they should go play an
lp or diku. Normal players in this game will be able to build (with
some minimal supervision, so there is no reason to want to be a wizard
(which would carry with it just slightly more administrative stuff;
nothing essentially new).
>wouldn't let them become a wizard. The granting of wizardships, if it
>happens at all, will be based on no set criteria, but rather decided
>on an individual basis. I want to move completely away from the idea
Oh no. Cries of favouritism are already echoing in the distance.
I've seen this before. I've had this problem before of people
complaining "He's only a wizard because... a) he's your roommate,
b) he's your bestfriend, c) he's local and I'm not (a major problem
on Silly at one time... not that it was true, but this is what
people claimed), d) all the above, etc, etc.
Like I said above, there is absolutely no reason anyone would want to
be a wizard in this game - you would get slightly increased
programming powers and more responsibilities. Of course, now you will
say that I won't have *any* wizards, because they will want to all be
players. Well, that's as may be, but I doubt it. :-)
Being a player should be and is the majority of the game. Becoming
a wizard is a reward for good playing and a seperate part of the
game.
Good playing is its own reward. Wizardship is basically being a
player, with a slightly wider range of powers and more duties.
Well, not really ;)
My hopes weren't high. :-)
Jamie
Stephen Schmidt
>Well, actually, it was *I* who restarted this thread, asking for ways
>to cut abuse specifically in my system. However, it seems that I'm the
>only one coming up with suggestions!
Some weeks upthread, I pointed out that improvement in combat skills and
magic skills is limited by hit points and spell points, which prevents
abuse by automatons without intefering with natural player activity. It
seems likely to me that similar limits (hunger, endurance, who knows what
all) could be placed on the use of other skills to similarly deter abuse
without penalizing normal use.
I agree with the general tenor of Jamie's remarks that more people are
posting criticisms than suggestions, but I want to point out that he's not
the ONLY one putting ideas forward. Also, I'd like to encourage other people
to post their ideas without fear of a gnarly flame war breaking out. Please,
let's keep things calm here, we're not talking about deliberate malice here
(like we are in other threads ;)
--
Steve Schmidt <>< wh...@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
Jamieson Norrish
wh...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
Some weeks upthread, I pointed out that improvement in combat skills and
magic skills is limited by hit points and spell points, which prevents
abuse by automatons without intefering with natural player activity. It
seems likely to me that similar limits (hunger, endurance, who knows what
all) could be placed on the use of other skills to similarly deter abuse
without penalizing normal use.
The hp one I do have (naturally), and that certainly means that abuse
in this area will not be a problem at all. Something similar could
also easily be brought into play for magic as well. It's the other
skills that I'm slightly concerned with. However, I could implement a
"sleep" period, which doesn't stop you from doing anything, but means
that one six hour period out of every four does not allow advancement
in skills. A bit kludgy, perhaps; what does everyone think?
I agree with the general tenor of Jamie's remarks that more people are
posting criticisms than suggestions, but I want to point out that he's not
the ONLY one putting ideas forward. Also, I'd like to encourage other people
to post their ideas without fear of a gnarly flame war breaking out. Please,
let's keep things calm here, we're not talking about deliberate malice here
(like we are in other threads ;)
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that only I could post on this thread; I
want as much input as I can get on this, because it seems to be the
main argument against skill based systems. Also, a flamewar is the
last thing I want.
Jamie
Jeffrey Stine
>skills that I'm slightly concerned with. However, I could implement a
>"sleep" period, which doesn't stop you from doing anything, but means
>that one six hour period out of every four does not allow advancement
>in skills. A bit kludgy, perhaps; what does everyone think?
>
sleep the player gets in a day and that as long as they get 8 hours? they
are unimpaired. Time spent off the game would count toward sleep total;
probably at a different rate than normal. Hard to say exactly as I know
little about your game system; it's time advancement ect.
It would seem that a continous period of no advancement is still penalizing
the player, for s/he does not get the same amount of playing time in as say
a client or bot. While you slow progress overall and reduce abuse schemes to
advance quickly, there is little incentive to be present and try different
things unless the player is at least as non goal oriented as yourself.
(Note that one `cheat' comes to mind in that if you can be reasonably sure
you are in the period of no advancement to just let your client take over
while you go out and watch a movie, have dinner..or play a different
character (possibly on the same mud))
Ultimately, I say if you are unsure of modifications to just try them
out for awhile. A little data on how well something works is often
better than mere opinion and at least you tried. :)
Vilkata (Joe Ludwig)
Each time you use a skill, it will increase. If you succeed, it will increase
based on hw hard it was for you to succeed. If you fail, it will increase by
some small amount loosely based on how hard it was for you to accomplish.
Average increases would probably be 0.02% for success, and 0.005% for failure.
You _will_ get some increase each time you use the skill, so you will
eventually get to the point where you will succeed. We prevent abuse with an
energy system. Each time you use a skill you use a bit of energy. When you
run out of energy(or movement points, or stamina, or whatever), you must eat
and/or sleep to get your energy back.
And on a similiar note:
We are planning to inlude atrophy in the system. Each day you don't use a
skill, any skill, you lose 0.5% of your proficiency. For instance: (and we
haven't nailed down a scale yet, so these are just rough numbers)
If I have a 900 skill in lock picking, and I don't pick a lock for a day, my
skill goes down to a 895. If I have a 200 lock picking skill, however, and I
don't use my skill for a day, my skill only goes down by 1 to 199.
We will record the highest that each skill has ever been disregarding atrophy,
and while you are currently lower than that point, skill increases will be
multiplied by two or three.
Any comments?
energ
--
+--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Vilkata, the Dark King | "It's better to rule in hell, than serve in |
| lud...@cs.colostate.edu | Heaven." -- Paridise Lost |
| Vilkata@Most MUCKs | "Maybe she sat on something sharp." -- Piper |
Stephen Schmidt
>We will record the highest that each skill has ever been disregarding atrophy,
>and while you are currently lower than that point, skill increases will be
>multiplied by two or three.
>
Um, wouldn't that be all the time? How could your skill level NOT be lower
than the highest it has ever been?
I think I missed something.
Vilkata (Joe Ludwig)
>In rec.games.mud, lud...@CS.ColoState.EDU (Vilkata (Joe Ludwig)) writes:
>>We will record the highest that each skill has ever been disregarding atrophy,
>>and while you are currently lower than that point, skill increases will be
>>multiplied by two or three.
>>
>Um, wouldn't that be all the time? How could your skill level NOT be lower
>than the highest it has ever been?
>I think I missed something.
Atrophy will take place once a day. If your skill is _at_ the highest it's ever
been, then you will get the normal increases.
T. Lesher
>
>And on a similiar note:
> We are planning to inlude atrophy in the system. Each day you don't use a
>skill, any skill, you lose 0.5% of your proficiency. For instance: (and we
>haven't nailed down a scale yet, so these are just rough numbers)
>If I have a 900 skill in lock picking, and I don't pick a lock for a day, my
>skill goes down to a 895. If I have a 200 lock picking skill, however, and I
>don't use my skill for a day, my skill only goes down by 1 to 199.
>We will record the highest that each skill has ever been disregarding atrophy,
>and while you are currently lower than that point, skill increases will be
>multiplied by two or three.
I'm not exactly sure I like the idea of atrophy. This will make the
mu* fun only for those people who can afford to spend time every day
(BTW, is this mu* day, or RL day? I assume the latter) on the game.
Of course, this is personal bias; I tend to enjoy games in which one
does not have to keep a constant umbilical-cord-like attachment to
one's computer (read: empire, some mu*s) :)
But I do like the idea of differing advancement levels. As an aside,
I played in a RL RPG (I forget which) in which you got something like
5x skill increase for the first time you did something, 2x for the
first <whatever> times, 1x for the next <some number> times, but only
a fraction thereafter (simulating the idea of, ho-hum, another
*yawn* lock. *click*). It also accounted for difficulty with another
multiplier. It was a major pain to do the math in RL, but it seems
that for a computer-based game, this would be *mostly painless*. Any
comments?
--
Tim Lesher <les...@bucknell.edu>
Jamieson Norrish
les...@capella.cs.bucknell.edu (T. Lesher) writes:
But I do like the idea of differing advancement levels. As an aside,
I played in a RL RPG (I forget which) in which you got something like
5x skill increase for the first time you did something, 2x for the
first <whatever> times, 1x for the next <some number> times, but only
a fraction thereafter (simulating the idea of, ho-hum, another
*yawn* lock. *click*). It also accounted for difficulty with another
multiplier. It was a major pain to do the math in RL, but it seems
that for a computer-based game, this would be *mostly painless*. Any
comments?
The game was either Rolemaster or MERP from ICE. I think that this
decreasing increase is adequately reflected in the "rolling over skill
chance to advance" system; as you get better at something (which comes
as a result of doing it a lot) it becomes harder (slower) to advance.
Jamie
Shawn L. Baird
[ in replying to someone else's reply ... ]
>Well, actually, it was *I* who restarted this thread, asking for ways
>to cut abuse specifically in my system. However, it seems that I'm the
>only one coming up with suggestions! As for the above point, I think
>that the code as it stands does cut out most abuse, and that die-hard
>powergamers can be dealt with on an individual. But if you have a
>better, non-arbitrary, way of doing it with code, then go ahead and
>tell me.
Okay, first let me acknowledge that we have different games in mind when
we discuss this. Mine is intended to be quite fiercely competitive and
players will not have building capabilities. They will also have no method
of becoming immortal other than at my discretion. On the other hand,
immortality is probably worth less than being a player. Players will,
however, most likely be granted only one life and then have to begin anew.
Anyway, to reply to the above statement I can simply reply that it is
false. As someone correctly pointed out, we're not here to simply bicker
back and forth. It is relevant, however, to discuss whether or not some
mechanism will work. It is also encouraged for people to input their own
ideas. You claim nobody has done so, yet I recall to you my restarting of
your restarting of this thread in which I said that improvements should be
based upon the difficulty of the feat attempted (okay, fine, you say you've
already done this, that isn't the point ... the point is that it was said
here ... if you said it earlier I missed it [I've got a rather nasty net
news server]). I also mentioned in a subsequent posting that the maximum
value the skill has ever been learned from might be stored in an effort to
rate to the player how proficient he or she is in a skill without giving
away their skill in relation to others with which they have not had contact.
The program as it stands cuts only one type of abuse, that of using a
client to advance too rapidly, and in essence it doesn't even do that since
I can have a client on 24 hours a day advancing my skills while I myself
have less time to devote. (Correction, that is the program as you initially
describe it.)
The point I and others have been trying to make, and a valid one I
think, is that abuse is still possible under only those protections alone
and that it may be possible to further prevent abuse via coded methods. If
these coded methods more closely approximate learning in real life, so much
the better.
>Whoa! That's the first I've heard about this! I always figured that
>most people played games because they were fun. If people want to play
>simply so that they can become a wizard, then they should go play an
>lp or diku. Normal players in this game will be able to build (with
>some minimal supervision, so there is no reason to want to be a wizard
>(which would carry with it just slightly more administrative stuff;
>nothing essentially new).
There are different sorts of games. While players of mine will not become
wizards by benefit of playing and certainly have no guarantee of longevity,
the object of the game will be to build power bases and to interact with
other players. There will be no singular goal, but development will
certainly be encouraged. I don't expect it will be very fast, either.
Great things need not be accomplished within a day.
In some ways, the playability of the game I have proposed could be
argued against. I'm not creating it for playability as much as for my own
thoughts as to how such a game should be. It will embody the limits of my
ability to protect characters from harm from elements outside my control
(crashes, link death, etc.), but it will be a fairly mortal game.
[ another poster argues that advancing only certain people to wizardship
will resound the mud with cries of favoratism ]
>Like I said above, there is absolutely no reason anyone would want to
>be a wizard in this game - you would get slightly increased
>programming powers and more responsibilities. Of course, now you will
>say that I won't have *any* wizards, because they will want to all be
>players. Well, that's as may be, but I doubt it. :-)
Personally, you both would be right in certain aspects. Wizardship is
symbollic with power, and so power hungry people will desire it regardless
of any actual benefits versus perceived benefits. There are also people
who will cry favoratism and foul play no matter what you do. Both kinds of
people can basically be done without. There is certainly no obligation to
play the game, so why should a creator feel obliged to make people into
wizards who don't deserve it?
>Good playing is its own reward. Wizardship is basically being a
>player, with a slightly wider range of powers and more duties.
Well, the offices of player and wizard can be quite distinctive. I have
met, for example, some good builders with no more than a minor interest in
actually playing the game. However, in a sense I think you are right.
Immortality is seldom regarded by some people as a reward for playing Diku,
unless it presents them with the opportunity to cheat. As I have said,
those who are suitable and show some desire will be allowed to have wizards
(possibly to the exclusion of having a mortal, perhaps not), those who
don't will not. Building your own power and living out the next day will
be its own reward, in essence. This could involve good playing, good luck,
or just low down double-dealing, cheating, lying, stealing and murdering.
Of course, in order to do the latter, they'll need to be good at the former,
but more on that later.
Shawn L. Baird
>In article <Dec07.154...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> lud...@CS.ColoState.EDU (Vilkata (Joe Ludwig)) writes:
>>We will record the highest that each skill has ever been disregarding atrophy,
>>and while you are currently lower than that point, skill increases will be
>>multiplied by two or three.
>Um, wouldn't that be all the time? How could your skill level NOT be lower
>than the highest it has ever been?
>I think I missed something.
The point he was making was that during normal times, when it had not
atrophied, players would gain at the normal rate. At this time their skill
level would be equal to the highest it has ever been. Thus players who had
atrophied from disuse would increase back to their former level at a higher
rate, representing the fact that they'd already learned the skill to that
level once.
The rates seem a bit twisted to me (both atrophying and gaining seemed
too high), but I believe the atrophy system has some merit. I had not,
myself, thought of retaining the max and increasing the rate at which the
atrophied skill was regained, but it makes a lot of sense to me and you can
be sure I'll file it away for future reference. :)
As far as the energy thing goes, it seems a bit contrived to me. I
will attach fatigue to the use of skills, and thus there will be some sort
of maximum limit as to how fast you can use a skill. In reality, some
skill use just doesn't take as much as others and some skills are simply
more readily easy to learn. There's also a difference between how fast you
become tired by a skill and how fast you can learn it, though the
difference may be mostly ignorable.
Jamieson Norrish
writes:
Okay, first let me acknowledge that we have different games in mind when
we discuss this. Mine is intended to be quite fiercely competitive and
players will not have building capabilities. They will also have no method
of becoming immortal other than at my discretion. On the other hand,
immortality is probably worth less than being a player. Players will,
however, most likely be granted only one life and then have to begin anew.
We certainly agree on the granting of wizardship and the mortality of
players. :) What I have in mind with building is something much more
controlled than is normal for many MUCKs. Everything built by a player
will be checked by a wizard (yes, probably impractical, but we'll see.
If anyone has any suggestions as to how to keep players strictly
within theme are welcome; I haven't thought about this very much).
Anyway, to reply to the above statement I can simply reply that it is
false. As someone correctly pointed out, we're not here to simply bicker
back and forth. It is relevant, however, to discuss whether or not some
mechanism will work. It is also encouraged for people to input their own
ideas. You claim nobody has done so, yet I recall to you my restarting of
your restarting of this thread in which I said that improvements should be
based upon the difficulty of the feat attempted (okay, fine, you say you've
already done this, that isn't the point ... the point is that it was said
here ... if you said it earlier I missed it [I've got a rather nasty net
news server]).
True; again I apologize for that paragraph - I was being slightly too
flippant, and it didn't come across well electronically. Sorry.
I also mentioned in a subsequent posting that the maximum value the
skill has ever been learned from might be stored in an effort to
rate to the player how proficient he or she is in a skill without
giving away their skill in relation to others with which they have
not had contact.
Actually, I think I may have missed this one. Would you elaborate on
this please? My own thoughts on telling players what their skill
levels were are restricted at the moment to just assigning range
descriptions, perhaps customised to each skill. Is this what you mean?
The program as it stands cuts only one type of abuse, that of using a
client to advance too rapidly, and in essence it doesn't even do that since
I can have a client on 24 hours a day advancing my skills while I myself
have less time to devote. (Correction, that is the program as you initially
describe it.)
True; advance will be slow, even with advancement every six hours -
but agreed, it isn't ideal.
The point I and others have been trying to make, and a valid one I
think, is that abuse is still possible under only those protections alone
and that it may be possible to further prevent abuse via coded methods. If
these coded methods more closely approximate learning in real life, so much
the better.
Just to return to my earlier post, I was trying to encourage (albeit
badly, it now turns out!) people to post how to stop this abuse,
rather than to say it's possible. :-) But I'd be interested in hearing
about these other sorts of abuse, and how you would combat them.
In some ways, the playability of the game I have proposed could be
argued against. I'm not creating it for playability as much as for my own
thoughts as to how such a game should be. It will embody the limits of my
ability to protect characters from harm from elements outside my control
(crashes, link death, etc.), but it will be a fairly mortal game.
Actually, I'm none too sure about the playability of mine either. It
is rapidly turning into a theoretical exercise - designing the
mechanics of a really good MU* (IMHO, of course).
[Snip.]
people can basically be done without. There is certainly no obligation to
play the game, so why should a creator feel obliged to make people into
wizards who don't deserve it?
Thank you for vindicating my position! That's exactly the way I feel.
Well, the offices of player and wizard can be quite distinctive. I have
met, for example, some good builders with no more than a minor interest in
actually playing the game.
I think that these would have to be the wizards who "began" with game
- if they weren't interested in playing, then I wouldn't want them.
[Snip.]
be its own reward, in essence. This could involve good playing, good luck,
or just low down double-dealing, cheating, lying, stealing and murdering.
Of course, in order to do the latter, they'll need to be good at the former,
but more on that later.
I look forward to hearing it.
Jamie
Jamieson Norrish
writes:
[Atrophy system deleted.]
The rates seem a bit twisted to me (both atrophying and gaining seemed
too high), but I believe the atrophy system has some merit. I had not,
myself, thought of retaining the max and increasing the rate at which the
atrophied skill was regained, but it makes a lot of sense to me and you can
be sure I'll file it away for future reference. :)
I like it too, and I might include it, although, with such slow
advancement, it probably wouldn't make the slightest bit of
difference. :-)
As far as the energy thing goes, it seems a bit contrived to me. I
will attach fatigue to the use of skills, and thus there will be some sort
of maximum limit as to how fast you can use a skill. In reality, some
skill use just doesn't take as much as others and some skills are simply
more readily easy to learn. There's also a difference between how fast you
become tired by a skill and how fast you can learn it, though the
difference may be mostly ignorable.
What skills were you thinking of attaching fatigue points to? The ones
that leap to mind for me are, of course, the work-related ones. That
is, climbing, swimming etc. Combat is probably tiring, but there's no
need for restriction in that area - the opponent is challenge enough!
Jamie
Shawn L. Baird
>While adding a skill-based system to Armageddon (inspired by all the recent
>posts on the subject), I encountered lots of abuse. What I did is record
>the time the player last gained in a skill, and the player is unable to
>gain again until 20 minutes after that time. That's about the rate that
>ordinary usage of the skill would cause it to increase anyway, so clients
>don't really help.
Again someone misses the real point. A client _does_ in fact help in this
sort of situation. I can write a client that will handle this sort of
behavior for me and leave it to play my character all night. All you are
doing via the above method is limiting the rate at which _all_ players may
advance. Now, there obviously needs to be a limit of some sort for this,
but it has no effect in making clients less efficient than playing. In
contrast, requiring that a player actively move on to more difficult
challenges makes writing a client to handle it extremely difficult (if they
can write one complex enough to do it, you might as well let them get away
with it, that much effort deserves reward).
Another idea flitting around my head is based upon my decision that I
want most of the numbers hidden from people playing the game. That is,
numerical statistics for most things will not be available to the general
player. Unfortunately, a player can just walk up to someone else and say:
"What's your swordsmanship skill?" Thus comparison is relatively simply.
I am thinking about throwing in another level here where you keep track of
the highest skill level in that skill the player has encountered (read
watched, experienced, trained from). Then you rate the player's own skill
as a function of that, by looking at which is highest, the player's skill
or the highest they've encountered. If it's their own skill they will
consider themselves the best most likely and rate their own skill highly,
else they will rate their skill based upon how close to the maximum they've
seen they are. Also, to approximate some initial knowledge, skills would
have some sort of a default highest encountered (like swordsmanship might
be, say, 40%). This may be a bit frustrating on players, however, who like
to habitually compare themselves with others. I expect social status will
help alleviate some of that.
I guess the point isn't to run around saying that skills based systems
are better than level based systems, etc. Both can be subject to abuse
under given conditions. What we're really trying to do is attempt some
modelling of how the learning process actually works.
Lars Syrstad
: In article <64...@pdxgate.UUCP> bai...@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Shawn L. Baird)
: writes:
[Stuff deleted]
: As far as the energy thing goes, it seems a bit contrived to me. I
: will attach fatigue to the use of skills, and thus there will be some sort
: of maximum limit as to how fast you can use a skill. In reality, some
: skill use just doesn't take as much as others and some skills are simply
: more readily easy to learn. There's also a difference between how fast you
: become tired by a skill and how fast you can learn it, though the
: difference may be mostly ignorable.
: What skills were you thinking of attaching fatigue points to? The ones
: that leap to mind for me are, of course, the work-related ones. That
: is, climbing, swimming etc. Combat is probably tiring, but there's no
: need for restriction in that area - the opponent is challenge enough!
Having followed these very interesting threads for a while, I think
it's time for me to offer some input as well...
(As will probably be evident, my experience lies with Lpmuds only :-))
I might want to get rid of things like spellpoints, hitpoints and
other points that are used to measure how much a player might
do of any given action. They could be replaced with a general
fatigue score, or perhaps better, two: Physical fatigue and
mental fatigue.
When the character exercises an action, fatigue increases.
Climbing a mountain, fighting a tribe of giants, picking a lock, or
even reading a book would all increase fatigue. Each skill defines
which type of fatigue should be affected, and gives a modifier on how
much it should be affected.
Climbing would be increasing physical fatigue, while reading books
would affect mental fatigue. (And perhaps a bit physical as well from
the effort of turning all those pages... ;-)).
And when a character tries to climb that mountain, it would
perform better the less fatigued it is. The same would apply
to combat - one would not lower one's opponent's hitpoints, but
make it more physically fatigued. The more fatigued, the greater
the chance of becoming fatally wounded etc etc.
The character's stats (talent) and education might modify how
much any given skill would increase fatigue. A powerful barbarian
might climb mountains all day long with only minor effects, but
might be exhausted after half an hour of reading, while a
under-nourished scholar would experience the opposite.
I think this would be reasonably realistic. In Real Life (tm) one
is not 'almost out of spellpoints' or 'a bit low on hitpoints'.
One is TIRED! And being physically tired affects all physical actions.
Not like the standard mud (well, lp at least :-)) of today, when
the fact that a character's almost dead doesn't hinder it from
running through a couple of deserts. And given this system, one
might also lower ones mental fatigue by taking a quick refreshing
walk through the forest. Actions would affect each other - and it
might also be quite easy to do it, once the system as such is setup.
(To set it up and balance it etc might be a chore though...)
I would be interested in hearing if anyone have tried to implement
anything like this, and if so, was it a roaring success? ;-)
All feedback is welcome. I might also try to get this working myself,
in the NEW mud - if my compatriot approves... (*wave Tenghil*, nice
concept, eh? Say yes! *bounce* :-))
: Jamie
Lars Syrstad - aka Drevreck of VikingMud, Kingdoms and the NEW ONE! :-)
--
Forced to watch, not eagerly.
Breaking hearts with words and all ecstasy.
- Paradise Lost.
Alan Baljeu
>In article <Dec07.154...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> lud...@CS.ColoState.EDU (Vilkata (Joe Ludwig)) writes:
>>
>>And on a similiar note:
>> We are planning to inlude atrophy in the system. Each day you don't use a
>>skill, any skill, you lose 0.5% of your proficiency. For instance: (and we
>>haven't nailed down a scale yet, so these are just rough numbers)
>>If I have a 900 skill in lock picking, and I don't pick a lock for a day, my
>>skill goes down to a 895. If I have a 200 lock picking skill, however, and I
>>don't use my skill for a day, my skill only goes down by 1 to 199.
>>We will record the highest that each skill has ever been disregarding atrophy,
>>and while you are currently lower than that point, skill increases will be
>>multiplied by two or three.
>I'm not exactly sure I like the idea of atrophy. This will make the
>mu* fun only for those people who can afford to spend time every day
>(BTW, is this mu* day, or RL day? I assume the latter) on the game.
>Of course, this is personal bias; I tend to enjoy games in which one
>does not have to keep a constant umbilical-cord-like attachment to
>one's computer (read: empire, some mu*s) :)
I would interpret that instead like this: If after a day of mudding, you
don't use that skill, it goes down. The system keeps track of this exactly
like it tracks your age.
--
Alan Baljeu
Jamieson Norrish
drev...@colargol.edb.tih.no (Lars Syrstad) writes:
I might want to get rid of things like spellpoints, hitpoints and
other points that are used to measure how much a player might
do of any given action. They could be replaced with a general
fatigue score, or perhaps better, two: Physical fatigue and
mental fatigue.
Physical fatigue sounds okay; I'm not sure about mental though - and
what does picking locks fall under? I would say neither myself.
And when a character tries to climb that mountain, it would
perform better the less fatigued it is. The same would apply
to combat - one would not lower one's opponent's hitpoints, but
make it more physically fatigued. The more fatigued, the greater
the chance of becoming fatally wounded etc etc.
Hmmmm. Interesting, almost along the lines of the Warhammer Fantasy
Roleplay mechanic, whereby damgae is deducted from your wounds score,
but doesn't do anything until they reach zero, and then you start
taking critical hits. But some things do not readily lend themselves
to the fatigue system. I imagine someone could ride a horse for long
periods, or pick locks, or cook food or...
Jamie
Dan Brumleve
>brumleve@gauss (Dan Brumleve) writes:
>>While adding a skill-based system to Armageddon (inspired by all the recent
>>posts on the subject), I encountered lots of abuse. What I did is record
>>the time the player last gained in a skill, and the player is unable to
>>gain again until 20 minutes after that time. That's about the rate that
>>ordinary usage of the skill would cause it to increase anyway, so clients
>>don't really help.
>Again someone misses the real point. A client _does_ in fact help in this
>sort of situation. I can write a client that will handle this sort of
>behavior for me and leave it to play my character all night. All you are
>doing via the above method is limiting the rate at which _all_ players may
>advance. Now, there obviously needs to be a limit of some sort for this,
>but it has no effect in making clients less efficient than playing. In
>contrast, requiring that a player actively move on to more difficult
>challenges makes writing a client to handle it extremely difficult (if they
>can write one complex enough to do it, you might as well let them get away
>with it, that much effort deserves reward).
Not less efficient, but not really any more so. What this does is
decrease the advancement rate to the rate that anyone legitimately using
the skill would advance at anyway. This doesn't prevent all-nighters,
but I can always zap them. ;-)
> Another idea flitting around my head is based upon my decision that I
>want most of the numbers hidden from people playing the game. That is,
>numerical statistics for most things will not be available to the general
>player. Unfortunately, a player can just walk up to someone else and say:
>"What's your swordsmanship skill?" Thus comparison is relatively simply.
>I am thinking about throwing in another level here where you keep track of
>the highest skill level in that skill the player has encountered (read
>watched, experienced, trained from). Then you rate the player's own skill
>as a function of that, by looking at which is highest, the player's skill
>or the highest they've encountered. If it's their own skill they will
>consider themselves the best most likely and rate their own skill highly,
>else they will rate their skill based upon how close to the maximum they've
>seen they are. Also, to approximate some initial knowledge, skills would
>have some sort of a default highest encountered (like swordsmanship might
>be, say, 40%). This may be a bit frustrating on players, however, who like
>to habitually compare themselves with others. I expect social status will
>help alleviate some of that.
Good... It's my opinion that numbers should be as removed from the
game as possible.
> I guess the point isn't to run around saying that skills based systems
>are better than level based systems, etc. Both can be subject to abuse
>under given conditions. What we're really trying to do is attempt some
>modelling of how the learning process actually works.
>| bai...@eecs.ee.pdx.edu |
>| I think I am right, therefore I am right. |