Skill decay control...... [Archive]

Shadow Walker2020

03-12-2007, 03:37 AM

Should players be able to control the skill decay on their characters?

A.) Yes. A system like UOs arrows and locks would do.

B.) No. Skill should not be controlable.

c.) other. explained in post.

for those who dont know how arrows and locks worked, heres a brief description.

Arrows and locks allow for a player to control their characters skills.

Example:

There was an arrow next to your characters skills on the skills list. You could toggle that arrow to point up, setting the skill to raise, point down, setting the skill to drop, or toggle it to a lock that would completely stop the skill from either raising or lowering, keeping it at its current percentage.

h0tsauce

03-12-2007, 03:41 AM

what are arrows and locks?

TheAravan

03-12-2007, 03:42 AM

It would be nice to see a system like UO had.

Shadow Walker2020

03-12-2007, 03:43 AM

Ive edited the original post to include a description of how arrows and locks worked.

alfaroverall

03-12-2007, 03:44 AM

Shadow Walker2020

03-12-2007, 03:47 AM

Didn't I already say earlier, with dev quotes and a citation backing me up, that the devs aren't stupid? They can do an uncontrollable skill decay system that doesn't suck. Citing the benefits of UO's system is also a pretty poor argument, because as said many times: THIS ISN'T UO2. That got cancelled.

What about all of the people who cite SB? Wasnt that considered one of the shittiest games ever made due to poor development?

That sounds pretty sad too.

Besides, I wasnt referenceing UO 2, I was referencing UO, which is still running.

TheAravan

03-12-2007, 03:49 AM

I don't think anyone was calling the Devs stupid. And there isn't anything wrong with saying this feature or that feature would be nice to see implemented.

alfaroverall

03-12-2007, 03:50 AM

What about all of the people who cite SB? Wasnt that considered one of the shittiest games ever made due to poor development?

That sounds pretty sad too.

Besides, I wasnt referenceing UO 2, I was referencing UO, which is still running.
Citing SB is also a poor argument, I should have mentioned that. As for that last bit...that makes no sense. My point was that DF shouldn't just mimic UO in all aspects because it isn't UO2. Did you not pick that up? I don't think I was being subtle.

Shadow Walker2020

03-12-2007, 03:52 AM

Citing SB is also a poor argument, I should have mentioned that. As for that last bit...that makes no sense. My point was that DF shouldn't just mimic UO in all aspects because it isn't UO2. Did you not pick that up? I don't think I was being subtle.

Well, unfortunately for you, Darkfall is mimicing UO in alot of ways. does the open PvP and full loot ring any bells? UO was doing that before any other game out there.

You dont seem to be picking up on the fact that Darkfall is very much like UO in alot of ways.

And when I say UO, I mean pre-ren UO.

alfaroverall

03-12-2007, 03:54 AM

Well, unfortunately for you, Darkfall is mimicing UO in alot of ways. does the open PvP and full loot ring any bells? UO was doing that before any other game out there.

You dont seem to be picking up on the fact that Darkfall is very much like UO in alot of ways.

And when I say UO, I mean pre-ren UO.
And again...you missed the point. The key word there was ALL, and DF is not mimicking all aspects of UO, because it is not UO2.

And since we're nitpicking, there were MUDs with open pvp and full loot long before UO.

TheAravan

03-12-2007, 03:56 AM

Ok but has anyone said they wanted Darkfall to mimic UO in all aspects?

alfaroverall

03-12-2007, 04:04 AM

Ok but has anyone said they wanted Darkfall to mimic UO in all aspects?
*sigh* Now we're arguing semantics, and I'm too tired to properly argue semantics. The gist of my point is that the idea of implementing skill locks is obviously almost entirely based on the fact that it was successful in UO; I doubt the idea would even be being proposed if UO had not used it. The people who want it don't consider that, as I said, the devs aren't stupid. They can do what they've already described and not make it suck, and because of that people won't be static 7x GMs with the same skills all the time. Instead, they'll evolve their characters to the situations that arise.

Being a static GM of 7 skills in a world where there are only 100 was just fine really. But if you're proposing the system that UO had, you may as well implement a hardcap of 70 skills GMed (since there's about 1000 skills in Darkfall) and leave it at that.

And if you're proposing a softcap with the UO system...that's just ridiculous, because people would get ridiculously overpowered.

Sorry...that post got a little less rational than I wanted it to be. As I said I'm tired.

Shadow Walker2020

03-12-2007, 04:06 AM

And again...you missed the point. The key word there was ALL, and DF is not mimicking all aspects of UO, because it is not UO2.

And since we're nitpicking, there were MUDs with open pvp and full loot long before UO.

MUDs? :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Okay, now you're just being sad. You're not even referencing games that come remotely close to UO or Darkfall. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

You would have been better off referencing that lame excuse for a game SB. :lmao: :lmao:

Seriously, give it up. Darkfall is more UO than you know. And yeah, it should use aspects from a game that bascially founded the MMORPG industry. Did I say it was completely UO? Nope. I said that its using alot of the stuff that UO did back in the day.

Is Darkfall UO 2? No, its UO revolutionized.

Now, quit hijacking the thread.

TheAravan

03-12-2007, 04:10 AM

No I wasn't asking for a soft cap system.And like I've said before I played UO for many years and am perfectly aware of how it worked. Just thought some control over decay would be nice, and fully understand UO's system can't be copied and pasted for Darkfall's.
And again no one is saying the Devs are stupid because they have an idea contrary to what the Devs want or are doing. And also just because they are making the game doesn't make their ideas 100% correct or ideal. It just means we have to accept it :sly:

Zoidbeerg

03-12-2007, 05:05 AM

It sure is a giving debate you two are having right here but let someone else post?

I think that skills should decay when they are not used for a while but there should be commands and ways to keep all from decaying (perhaps if you enter a mage school and ask if you could keep your skills up to date then you could do some minigame or something).

Daarco

03-12-2007, 09:58 AM

I would want it to uncontrolled.

I mean, what the hell is a skill decay lock???

It sound kinnda carebear, "I have something and i dont want to struggle for it" thing.
Everything else is hardcore....let the skills be it too:D

Ulla_jensen

03-12-2007, 03:23 PM

I only think you should be able to set skill to be locked or down, lets say like 3 skill in each category (is is good if you are going on a vacation, and don't want to lose all your fighting capabilities).... not up, if you can offline train skills it will become like EVE a game where you have to have to have had an character for 1year to fly a big ship... and that's not what the developers want, they have implanted the skill cap so that newcomers quickly can be almost as good as a veteran.

Traep

03-13-2007, 12:31 AM

How about making locking skills uncontrollable unless you pick a prestige class? Then you could have the decay on specific skills slowed down (not locked). I think it'd give an advantage to the prestige classes but not an advantage without its disadvantages and it would give people who really really want to maintain certain skills a way to do it while others would have more adaptive characters. Eh?

andy9306

03-13-2007, 12:44 AM

There is no point really. It worked in UO because it had a set hardcap that you could not go past. That way passives could "steal" points from your GMs.

DFO does not have a set hardcap, skill decay would work very poorly if it worked the UO way.

This is why I believe that skill decay is a function of time unused, rather than a function of other skills used.

With this method there is no point having control because the skills that you will have GMed are the ones that you will use regularly anyway so they will remain GM.

alfaroverall

03-13-2007, 12:45 AM

(is is good if you are going on a vacation, and don't want to lose all your fighting capabilities)
It has been said time and time again that skill decay does not occur while offline...

andy9306

03-13-2007, 12:52 AM

It has been said time and time again that skill decay does not occur while offline...

Said by players anyway...but, ya it would be pretty silly if your skills decayed while you were offline.

If it did they could always stick in a time limit. For instance, six hours after you last logged off your skills stop decaying. No real reason to have it occur while offline at all though.

Shadow Walker2020

03-13-2007, 01:40 AM

Bascially, its like this.

If a player took the time to train up a skill in the first place, then they should be able to keep that skill on their as long as they want/need it. Having to go back a retrain a skill because you havent used it in a day or two sucks. It keeps players in the training fields and off of the battle fields.

Skills would still be able to decay, but it would be becuase that player no longer wants that skill on their character and has deicded that they want to free up the skill points for another skill.

Its all about character customization. The more control you have over your characters atributes, the better a player can set their character to their specific tastes.

andy9306

03-13-2007, 01:52 AM

The battle field is the training field. The skills you use raise. You use the skills you like. That way the skills you like stay at a fairly high level.

Shadow Walker2020

03-13-2007, 01:59 AM

The battle field is the training field. The skills you use raise. You use the skills you like. That way the skills you like stay at a fairly high level.

Players arent going to set foot onto the battle field unless they are fully confident in the power of their characters skills. Thats why you wont see newbie characters joining seiges. They will want to train up their skills ans stats first on their characters, then sharpen their skills as a player by learning to use all of those skill on their character.

However, there will be skills that players do not use all of the time or that will be less favored that others. But the fact remains that the player put that skill on their character for a specific reason. They may not use it every day, but there are circumstances that will dictate the use of said skill. This is why skill decay control is needed.

A good example, swimming skill. A player may not spend their entire day wading around it water, but they trained the character up in that specific skill so, when the time did come that they had to enter water, they would be able to survive. Not drown and lose whatever progress they had made.

A player may have also trained their warrior up with some magic (or vice versa, a mage with some combat) in case of the event they were up against a foe that was weak against a certian element, or was weaker against magic. Because they are a warrior, they will use their melee combat skills more than their magic. And one would imagine that training up magic is a difficult taske, considering magic requires reagents. It would be unfair to have all of that time and money spent training up a magical spell, only to have it all lost because it wasnt used that often.

alfaroverall

03-13-2007, 02:05 AM

However, there will be skills that players do not use all of the time or that will be less favored that others. But the fact remains that the player put that skill on their character for a specific reason. They may not use it every day, but there are circumstances that will dictate the use of said skill. This is why skill decay control is needed.
Here's something that I can actually buy into. My only question is, what kind of skills would there be that you wouldn't be using a little bit here and there? Crafting? Since skill decay occurs only at an "expert level", a typical joe shmoe with enough crafting to make a nice rusty suit of armor won't be losing skill points. And an expert crafter is of course likely going to be crafting a lot, unless they change their playstyle. Combat? Even with 1000+ skills and spells, I'm a bit skeptic about players having skills that they use only in special scenarios. I mainly think this because I personally can't think of any examples of such a skill. Maybe I'm too closed-minded, but I can't. If you could provide an example of such a skill, whether hypothetical or from a game that you've played, I would be intrigued. I only ask that you not cite moves from previous games (like WoW) that have cooldowns, because obviously you're only going to use those in certain scenarios.

Regarding the examples you have provided in your edit, I would think that in both of those cases, the fact that skill decay only sets in at an "expert level" should be noted. If you trained your swimming skill to 100 for some reason and then became a full-on land person, it probably wouldn't decay past 50 AT THE MOST (I would suspect 75 myself.) So you wouldn't suddenly be an awful swimmer, you'd probably be a good bit above average after not swimming AT ALL for a good length of time. If you're a warrior type who trained up a given little spell area, you're probably not even going to GET to an "expert level" where you would decay, assuming that I'm interpreting your statement correctly.

Shadow Walker2020

03-13-2007, 02:08 AM

Here's something that I can actually buy into. My only question is, what kind of skills would there be that you wouldn't be using a little bit here and there? Crafting? Since skill decay occurs only at an "expert level", a typical joe shmoe with enough crafting to make a nice rusty suit of armor won't be losing skill points. And an expert crafter is of course likely going to be crafting a lot, unless they change their playstyle. Combat? Even with 1000+ skills and spells, I'm a bit skeptic about players having skills that they use only in special scenarios. I mainly think this because I personally can't think of any examples of such a skill. Maybe I'm too closed-minded, but I can't. If you could provide an example of such a skill, whether hypothetical or from a game that you've played, I would be intrigued. I only ask that you not cite moves from previous games (like WoW) that have cooldowns, because obviously you're only going to use those in certain scenarios.

Read my last post. I added in some examples of skills that players would want to be able to hang onto.

freeze_SD

03-13-2007, 02:12 AM

hhmmm... let's take cartography skill from UO
I didn't use mine very often... but it was an alt after all...

you did draw maps to raise the skill to be able to read/decode treasure maps...

I rarely did T-Hunts, so if it was DF and SCS my carto skill would have definately dropped ^^
I maybe dig out chests every 2 weeks... to restock some weapons/armor

but it's not really a good example... can't really come up with something...

maybe ritual spells, which need 10+ ppl to cast... would be hard to maintain a high skill in that spell (which is maybe intended :D)

alfaroverall

03-13-2007, 02:25 AM

Ritual magic, I will give you that. But as you said, that's likely intended, because the devs don't want it to be easy to be a ritual magic master. The top-level ritual magic, which would be extremely difficult to get due to skill decay, reagent cost, etc. could be really really powerful, so that those willing to stick it out would have a nice little advantage. Fortunately ritual magic balances itself (time required, mages required, vulnerability of mages, reagents required, etc.) so the balance factor isn't all that big of a deal.
Read my last post. I added in some examples of skills that players would want to be able to hang onto.
Just an annoying set of timings on edits; you made your edit just as I made my post, then you posted this before I could make my edit. :bang:

Shadow Walker2020

03-13-2007, 02:26 AM

Regarding the examples you have provided in your edit, I would think that in both of those cases, the fact that skill decay only sets in at an "expert level" should be noted. If you trained your swimming skill to 100 for some reason and then became a full-on land person, it probably wouldn't decay past 50 AT THE MOST (I would suspect 75 myself.) So you wouldn't suddenly be an awful swimmer, you'd probably be a good bit above average after not swimming AT ALL for a good length of time. If you're a warrior type who trained up a given little spell area, you're probably not even going to GET to an "expert level" where you would decay, assuming that I'm interpreting your statement correctly.

Well, I dont think the skill decay will stop at 50 or 75. Its probably going to drop all the way down to 0. Skill decay is used to get rid of unwanted skills. but, the problem is, unused doesnt always mean unwanted.

I was refering to a case where the warrior trained up their skill up to master or higher. They would want their spell to do some real damage. And to do that, one would probably have to train it up to expert or higher in order to have the spell do competant damage. But, since they are a warrior, they wouldnt use that spell too often, only in emergency cases such as facing off against a foe thats only vulnerable to magic or need a quick magical heal. Since magic is a difficult field to train in given that it requires reagents and more time than warrior skills, it would be annoying and futile for a warrior to train up magic since the skill would only keep dropping because they didnt use it all the time. This would lead to player frustration to have to keep retraining an expensive skill.

alfaroverall

03-13-2007, 02:30 AM

Well, I dont think the skill decay will stop at 50 or 75. Its probably going to drop all the way down to 0. Skill decay is used to get rid of unwanted skills. but, the problem is, unused doesnt always mean unwanted.
Therein lies a flaw in this whole debate: the devs haven't told us enough to really debate this. :bang:

Azash_AT

03-13-2007, 02:32 AM

Therein lies a flaw in this whole debate: the devs haven't told us enough to really debate this. :bang:

Hehe could you go ahead and repost this under every active topic on the GD and Poll forums. :lmao:

Its so true it hurts!

Shadow Walker2020

03-13-2007, 02:34 AM

Therein lies a flaw in this whole debate: the devs haven't told us enough to really debate this. :bang:

Hmmm.......

Yeah, that is a problem. They never said whether or not the skills would drop below that master level. One would figure that they do, considering skill decay is used to get rid of unwatned skills. But, they never said.

Oh well. Skill decay is still a pain in the ass, regardless.

This is what happens when Devs dont clarify how exactly things work in their game.

Insufficient info FTL.

andy9306

03-13-2007, 03:51 AM

It was stated somewhere that you could "drop skills" whenever you want/need to. Possibly have it so you can only drop them once they are below the expert level. That way skill decay only gets you so far. Then the real choice would be yours.

It wouldn't make sense for skill decay to start affecting a skill once it has reached expert level and for it to continue decaying until it is completely gone.

Agge

03-13-2007, 05:38 AM

No, if you don't use a skill, make it decay with time I say.

andy9306

03-13-2007, 06:16 AM

Yay, decaying with time.

tarsus

03-13-2007, 06:20 AM

Before arrows and locks in UO, everytime a guildmate would put on a wand of identification, I would attack him so his mace skill would go up and he'd lose like 5 points of his 7 GM. Ahahahahahaha

Tongue

03-14-2007, 07:38 PM

I think people should to start getting used to the possibility that they might not have many, if any, of their skills GM'd. Nothing wrong with that. I think most are used to the idea that they will have all thier favorite skills GM'd..like it was a matter of fact.

There is nothing wrong with most of our main skills floating around the 75 area, with maybe one completely GM'd at all times.

Rossm

03-15-2007, 02:43 AM

I've never experienced UO's arrows and locks but a lot of people seem to like them so I wouldn't mind seeing them. However, an uncontrollabel skill decay would be realistic and it could still not suck that bad.

Bran

03-17-2007, 01:34 AM

Voted Yes but think that skills that are rarely used should still be susceptible to decay

Shadow Walker2020

03-17-2007, 04:08 AM

Zanthox

04-04-2007, 11:08 PM

I put that it should not be controllable because the only way to keep them from going down is to use them. or should be, I think.
However, I think the higher the skill lvl the slower they decay. Once you are amazing at something it doesn't matter to much if you practice everyday, so you shouldn't have to.

iza

04-05-2007, 12:12 AM

^ it works in the opposite way I believe; higher level skills decay faster.

Skvate

04-05-2007, 12:36 AM

YES. And skillpoints in skills that have decayed, should be regained easier than skills you havent trained before....like in real life. You never really forget how to do stuff you have learned, you need shorter time to practise your skills back up to level than a neopythe.

Diego Draw

04-05-2007, 12:59 AM

I honestly can't say that I have a lot of experience with UO at all, but to me, what I've seen of the arrow/lock process, it seemed so incredibly artificial. Yes, it'd probably suck to have a skill that you like decay, but that's why you USE the skills that you like to use...
And what realism would that bring to the game?
"Okay, so I play guitar now. But dang...I have so much work to do lately. I feel like I never get a chance to practice. I guess I'll just lock my skill so that I don't need to practice guitar to stay good anymore. That way, any time I touch a guitar, even if it's been a few years, I'll still be able to shred like MAD! Alright!"

Make sense? Not really.

andy9306

04-05-2007, 07:39 AM

I don't see why people complain that not having it controlled will damage their GMs.

Getting experience in one skill does not lower your skill in another.

Kralk

04-09-2007, 03:50 AM

Other: No skill decay.

freeze_SD

04-09-2007, 04:59 AM

Other: No skill decay.

you're serious?

that would suck and after 2 years, no one will start DF as a new player... because it's nearly impossible to catch up

that's the main reason why I never tried Eve Online...

Silvereye

04-09-2007, 12:50 PM

Shadow Walker2020

04-10-2007, 06:14 AM

Hmmm. Close poll.

Skill decay should be controlable. If you took the time to train the skill up, then the player should be able to lock that skill out so it stays up.

If a player took the time to train up a skill, then they did so for good reason. It should be taken away just because they havent used it in a day or so. They put work into training up that skill. What happens to it should be that players decision.

Synune

04-10-2007, 06:43 AM

Synune

04-10-2007, 06:48 AM

quoting zoidberg:

who are you zoidberg? and why did you post here?

oops sorry for double post

Shadow Walker2020

04-12-2007, 07:03 AM

I'd go for realism. If you stop playing guitar and you won't do it for YEARS; you'll get a bit rusty. Skills should decay untill a certain level. And that could/should go to quite low. Locking skills is a REALLY bad idea, but maybe a lock that would decrease the rate in wich the skill would decrease? (still following that?)

Anyway, skill decay is definetly a REQUIREMENT for this game.

Realism? Screw realism. People get enough of that in the real world. This is a game, therefore, its not supposed to be real.

If a player trains up a skill on a character, they are doing it for a reason. Locks and arrows would allow for players to keep the skills they want up and drop the ones they dont.

Say a player makes an archer/warrior, having both melee and ranged combat skills. The player trains up both the archery and melee skill, for this case lets use swords as an example, up to 100.0%. The player trained up the archery as a back up skill, to be used in the event they come across a flying monster or want to attack their foes at a distance, but the swords is the skill they use the most. They melee mostly and dont use the archery for a while. But then, they come across someone or something they want to ambush and that player wants to use their archery. They select a nasty attack for the archer, say triple shot, but cant use it because the attack requires 100.0 skill and that player is now say 70.0. That player basically trained up the skill for nothing. They cant use the attack they want. The unchecked skill decay cost that player work they put into their character.

However, if locks and arrows had been in place, that player would still of had 100.0 skill in their archery despite the fact they havent used it in a while and would be able to attack their quarry.

Skill decay is alright, as long as it can be controled by the player for optimal character customization.

camodsb

04-13-2007, 08:12 AM

Skill decay is only good for people who play 24/7 those who only play casually will find it frustrating to come on and the first thing they have to do again is to build up there skills again!!!

gtechie

04-13-2007, 08:35 AM

Say a player makes an archer/warrior, having both melee and ranged combat skills. The player trains up both the archery and melee skill, for this case lets use swords as an example, up to 100.0%. The player trained up the archery as a back up skill, to be used in the event they come across a flying monster or want to attack their foes at a distance, but the swords is the skill they use the most. They melee mostly and dont use the archery for a while. But then, they come across someone or something they want to ambush and that player wants to use their archery. They select a nasty attack for the archer, say triple shot, but cant use it because the attack requires 100.0 skill and that player is now say 70.0. That player basically trained up the skill for nothing. They cant use the attack they want. The unchecked skill decay cost that player work they put into their character.

However, if locks and arrows had been in place, that player would still of had 100.0 skill in their archery despite the fact they havent used it in a while and would be able to attack their quarry.

It makes more sense to me that if he wants to be able to use this badass archery spell, he should practice just a little bit of archery every day. Then his skill won't be down to 70.
Or, if it is 70, I'm sure he's still pretty good with a bow, and can ambush his prey just fine.
It seems to me that if you want your skill in a field to stay up, you should use that skill somewhat often.
But I picture a slow skill decay that doesn't go below a certain level, so, as was said earlier, we don't know enough about this topic to be able to say who's more right and who's more wrong.

I did, however, enjoy the suggestion that a prestige class's benefit is a slower skill decay in its certain field. It could be counteracted with a faster skill decay in other fields, thus solidifying the notion that prestige classes are just for players who want to do one thing and do it well. Everyone else can have a dynamic skill system that molds to their playstyles more efficiently.

Bloodgloom

05-01-2007, 06:33 PM

Any system that forces you to repeated grind out skills you've already obtained just to stay competitive in pvp doesn't sound like much fun to me.

chr1s

05-01-2007, 08:04 PM

Oh my god yet another poll probably voted on by WoW users. Of course we should have the arrows and locks like Uo had!! We all remember (those of us who played the old UO) how it was when UO didn't have those locks and arrows, it was so fking annoying!!

Omg if they don't implement the locks and arrows and they stick with the SCS they will totally destroy this game it will be a disaster.

It's a sad shame this forum has been taken hostage by WoW users most of whom never played the old UO.

coder1024

05-01-2007, 08:30 PM

What about all of the people who cite SB? Wasnt that considered one of the shittiest games ever made due to poor development?
no, it wasn't. it was and still is a great PvP game :-)

coder1024

05-01-2007, 08:32 PM

you need to be able to control the skill growth given the presence of the softcap. otherwise, there will be skills you have to contually use that you don't necessarily want to keep increasing. for example, say you want to lock your run skill and keep it low, meaning you'll be much slower, but you'll have more points to put into your weapon skill or something.

Osirus

05-03-2007, 05:24 PM

the notion that a specific character skill will deminish if unused(only applicable while logged in) makes sense.

Osirus

05-03-2007, 05:29 PM

Lycidious

05-03-2007, 05:46 PM

personally, i would not like to see the arrows.

i am all for skill decay, but i would like it to be natural, like what homeboy said about the guitar.

Daprophet

05-03-2007, 07:14 PM

Voted for SKill decay uncontrollable.

I agree if your trained to be the best in archery/warrior you should be doing a little of it here there and not putting it aside for weeks.

Also on the casual gamer thing, again it was said skills dont decay offline... Your not regrinding skills unless you dont use them for a while.

if you want ultimate character control, just keep using the skills you've been using :sly: DF is not a game where you can be the best warrior/mage/archer/rogue/crafter guy or even the best warrior sword/axe/knife whatever guy...

Lill_Troll

05-04-2007, 12:33 PM

There should really be no Skill-decay at all, or at least nominal in the extreme.

A completely open-ended Skill-system similar to PE would be the best IMHO. Where it'd take a really Hardcore players years to Cap-out a single skill.

I'm not entirely sure, but I belive PE has a it's first Skill-roof at either 99.999 or 999.999, after which it "resets" and raises to 1337 which is the ultimate Skill-Cap there.

losinglife

05-11-2007, 01:59 PM

im gonna go with yes on this one just cause there will be so many skills in this game... it will give you a chance to try new things if you want

Drool111

06-20-2008, 12:54 PM

We'll see what happens.

freeze_SD

06-20-2008, 12:58 PM

We'll see what happens.

wtf?!

way to necro a thread.... I bet you don't even have the slightest idea what's being discussed here

Indah

06-20-2008, 01:48 PM

Drool111

06-20-2008, 01:51 PM

wtf?!
way to necro a thread.... I bet you don't even have the slightest idea what's being discussed here

They're talking about skill decay and if you should be able to control it or not. Pretty simple mate.. Here I am contributing to the forums and you go about trolling me for doing so. I am extremely offended and I must be off because my people are awaiting my swift return. Farewell young sir.

Unahim

06-20-2008, 02:13 PM

Ritual magic, I will give you that. But as you said, that's likely intended, because the devs don't want it to be easy to be a ritual magic master. The top-level ritual magic, which would be extremely difficult to get due to skill decay, reagent cost, etc. could be really really powerful, so that those willing to stick it out would have a nice little advantage. Fortunately ritual magic balances itself (time required, mages required, vulnerability of mages, reagents required, etc.) so the balance factor isn't all that big of a deal.

Just an annoying set of timings on edits; you made your edit just as I made my post, then you posted this before I could make my edit. :bang:

Ritual magic was found redundant and is now integrated in other spell schools, as we haven't heard notion of spells also decaying, those spells likely are not an issue

We'll see what happens.

Way to "contribute"

Drool111

06-20-2008, 02:27 PM

Way to "contribute"

Thank you very much kind sir.

Unahim

06-20-2008, 02:29 PM

Thank you very much kind sir.

You're welcome. We all need +1 at times

dirtknap

06-20-2008, 03:17 PM

the thing is, players trained their characters skills up for a reason. They are going to need those skills at top efficiency in order to survive. With skill decay control, players will still be able to let skills they do no want drop and decay while the skills they do want will be kept at whatever percentage they were locked out at, thus, allowing the player to keep the skills they took the time to train up on their character.

1) use skills if you don't want them to decay.
2) don't grind skills, just stfu and play.

seriously every one of your posts in this forum contains bad ideas.

DF is not UO. UO died, because it sucked. the end.

nooblet

06-20-2008, 03:51 PM

Went for no beacuse this isnt UO2 and i just prefer it to be a little more realistic on this issue. If you keep on fighting, your fighting skills will remain at the top and will not be decaying due to constant top ups of skill points.
If however you play for months without crafting your skill should decay and allow newbie crafters over take your skill and be useful. This will stop fighters from locking a crafting skill or two so they never have to rely on the market as they would just craft their own stuff.
What i believe makes a really good game and community is the diversity of the player base and the need to rely on other players to some extent. Locking skills would just mean anyone could grind up a skill as fast as possible, lock it, then never have to worry about it again. Like my previous example this could effectively remove the need for someone who wants to be a pure crafter/trader, as everyone and their dog will no doubt have a maxed, locked crafting skill.

DaveDFF

06-20-2008, 04:25 PM

*sigh* Now we're arguing semantics, and I'm too tired to properly argue semantics. The gist of my point is that the idea of implementing skill locks is obviously almost entirely based on the fact that it was successful in UO; I doubt the idea would even be being proposed if UO had not used it. The people who want it don't consider that, as I said, the devs aren't stupid. They can do what they've already described and not make it suck, and because of that people won't be static 7x GMs with the same skills all the time. Instead, they'll evolve their characters to the situations that arise.

Being a static GM of 7 skills in a world where there are only 100 was just fine really. But if you're proposing the system that UO had, you may as well implement a hardcap of 70 skills GMed (since there's about 1000 skills in Darkfall) and leave it at that.

And if you're proposing a softcap with the UO system...that's just ridiculous, because people would get ridiculously overpowered.

Sorry...that post got a little less rational than I wanted it to be. As I said I'm tired.

Decay should be from the skill least used no locks required....

DaveDFF

06-20-2008, 04:32 PM

MUDs? :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Okay, now you're just being sad. You're not even referencing games that come remotely close to UO or Darkfall. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

You would have been better off referencing that lame excuse for a game SB. :lmao: :lmao:

Seriously, give it up. Darkfall is more UO than you know. And yeah, it should use aspects from a game that bascially founded the MMORPG industry. Did I say it was completely UO? Nope. I said that its using alot of the stuff that UO did back in the day.

Is Darkfall UO 2? No, its UO revolutionized.

Now, quit hijacking the thread.

A lot of MUDs come incredibly close to DF and UO if in a lot of ways they surpass them. Just because there are no graphics doesn't mean the games are not excelent.

Beorg

06-20-2008, 04:59 PM

As long as you keep using that skill, it should not decay. I'm not sure which one this applies to.

Shadowfox

06-20-2008, 07:14 PM

As long as you keep using that skill, it should not decay. I'm not sure which one this applies to.

I did not vote but no on locks and arrows but yes on control in the sense that you use a weapon, you use a skill it goes up don't use them they go down, that's control enough. I doubt anyone will be clicking the up arrow on swordsmanship and be using a staff as they watch the sword skill increase. At least it has been implied that skills are increased and decreased according to how much they are or are not used.

Caldenfor

06-20-2008, 07:20 PM

Until I get more information on the actual system they plan to use I can't say I would like to have it any other way. If I work hard to max out a skill, I don't want to lose it after a day of not actually using said skill. If I went a week or something, then sure it can start decaying, but at what rate do you have to use the skill to keep it up to snuff? I don't know.

Caldenfor

Shad0wyone

06-20-2008, 09:05 PM

About the arrows and locks thing, why the HELL would you WANT a skill to drop?

Drogon

06-21-2008, 01:29 AM

I voted for non-controllable skill decay. However, the DF system (as I understand it) is controllable by your actions. This is realistic, as it should be. Using some bar to say you want to raise your parry skill when all you do is slash and attack all out makes no sense.

The only thing I wouldn't want to see is that you'd have to go back to a trainer again to learn something you haven't used in a while. Skill decay should lower skills over time, but I'd rather not see it remove them all together.