I am reformatting my game's weapon/armor forging system and I came up with two ways:
Player makes a duplicate of a weapon/armor that already exists in the game, creating better items as they progress.
OR...
Player makes a unique weapon/armor that is different from the "original" weapons/armor by using a random number (1-skill level) as its weapon power or armor bonus.
Which would be a better/sounder choice?
ID:153274
 Jul 26 2004, 1:20 pm
|
|
I came up with a new save system that uses some of the stuff you suggested: When the player goes to make a weapon, they choose a weapon they have to use as a model. Then, the weapon strength of the weapon dictates the amount of ingots required and if the player's skill is within 5 of the weapon's strength, they can duplicate it but it won't have any enchantments unless the weapon was originally created with an enchantment. If the player is good enough, they could bypass this and even improve some of the weapons stats.
I would have to make a var for legendary weapons/armor, either to keep it from being duplicated or make it so that it is harder to make than a weapon/armor of the same strength or armor bonus (which determines the skill required as previously said). PS:Is there a proc to get the first or last letters of a text string? I want to make it so that it says "You made an ..." or "You made a ..." when appropriate. | |
EGUY wrote:
PS:Is there a proc to get the first or last letters of a text string? I want to make it so that it says "You made an ..." or "You made a ..." when appropriate. Look up "macro (text)" in the reference. | |
Another thing would be allowing them to "sign" their creations at a certain skill. So if they where a master blacksmith, and sold armor to people, it would read "Steel Mail Chest Plate By Scoobert"
Also, allowing them to dye the steel during forging would be cool, but it would have a chance of weakening the armor/weapon, this would be based on skill. But they couldn't just pick a color, you would need to buy/find "red iron dye" or "Dragoon Black Steel dye". These would rate from common to extreamly rare. And some weapons would need the dye to be compleated right, such as a "Wolf Blood Sword" would probably need "Wolf Blood Iron Dye", for example. Just some ideas to give more reward than money to a master blacksmith. | |
Scoobert wrote:
Also, allowing them to dye the steel during forging would be cool, but it would have a chance of weakening the armor/weapon, this would be based on skill. Apparently you missed the "Random success is evil!" part of my earlier post. Never add random success if it isn't absolutely necessary. Nothing pissess off players than having their efforts fail randomly. I'm sure everyone would much rather choose their colors without having a random chance of ruining their stuff tacked on needlessly. | |
Well, a high quality sword that is Iron colored, and a high quality sword that is Wolf Blood Red would sell for a large price diffrence. And I didnt say have it randomly fail, I said have quality of the sword be random, the sword will be created, but a novice blacksmith would tend to make bad sword, but sometimes would create a nice one, be it luck or learning, it the quality would very. Also, even a master blacksmith could get a bad batch of ignots.
| |
Apparently you missed the "Random success is evil!" part of my earlier post. A good thing to do is just to calculate the average number of tries it would take the given person to make the item at their skill level. Then multiply the required time and materials needed by this number and make this the requirements for the person to make the item at that level of expertise. Then your system would take into account the extra time and materials needed for someone not as experienced. For the end quality you'd just do the same thing and figure out what the average quality the person would make is. Much less annoying than a random system and people with a low skill level could still preform their skill it would just take a good number of resources to do and a good chunk of time. | |
Scoobert wrote:
I didnt say have it randomly fail, I said have quality of the sword be random And if you're trying to get a quality 100 sword, and you randomly get a quality 55 sword, you just "randomly failed" to get a quality 100 sword, even though a quality 100 sword is within your ability. | |
Foomer wrote:
Never add random success if it isn't absolutely necessary. Nothing pissess off players than having their efforts fail randomly. Yeah, I was playing poker the other night and I couldn't draw a single royal flush. What's up with that? Sure, random failure pisses many players off. Any failure pisses players off--take your standard, bash-a-million-orcs-to-build-XP type RPG. Some players will have their efforts fail simply because they haven't spent a couple hundred hours mindlessly bashing orcs, and that pisses them off. Other players will spend hundreds of hours bashing orcs to get to level 267, then have their efforts fail because some level 3 noob outsmarted them, and that really pisses them off. Most players just want to win so they can be "l33t", and they don't care what it is they're winning at so long as they are. If you set up a Checkers variant where black starts out with 16 pieces, all kinged, and red starts out with 2 pieces, players will happily jump at the chance to play the black side, proceed to thrash the red player, and then crow about their prowess to the skies--the fact that the odds were 1000-to-1 in their favor is outweighed in their eyes by the simple fact that they won. This is part of the reason why cheating is so prevalent in online games. <yoda>Fair play? Level contests of skill? A gamer craves not these things.</yoda> Random factors are an equalizer: no matter how long you play, no matter how good you get, you can still fail, you can still lose. A game which you are incapable of losing is not a game; random factors are far from the best way of keeping outcomes undetermined, but they are the easiest and the most reliable. | |
I had a big long post to counter but the server for BYOND restarted when I tried to post and lost it so I'm cutting down :P.
<yoda>Fair play? Level contests of skill? A gamer craves not these things.</yoda> How is randomly winning or losing in anyway fair? In a true game of skill there is no random factors like chess. Random factors are an equalizer: no matter how long you play, no matter how good you get, you can still fail, you can still lose. How does equalizing have anything to do with skill? It seems counter to the whole point of having players get good at a game so they can beat those who aren't as good. Let's play a game of coin toss. Heads you win, tales I win. If I win more often than you does it mean I'm better at the game than you? A game which you are incapable of losing is not a game;If you are incapable of losing it's a bad game(or atleast not a challanging one). But losing should happen when you play the game poorly not because the game just randomly decides you lose. If you have mastered the game and are better than any other player or AI you shouldn't lose. random factors are far from the best way of keeping outcomes undetermined, but they are the easiest and the most reliable. Undetermined results are counter to the point of tests of skill. If I win the lotto am I more skilled in any way than someone who doesn't? If a person new to poker just randomly gets lots of good hands are they better than a skilled person who is very talented at card counting and estimating odds? If I'm lucky in an RPG and happen to manage to get a lot of high rolls am I neccissarly better than someone who doesn't? The point being that the larger the band of random results is the less a game is about skill and the more it is about dumb luck. So if you truely want a game about skill you want to avoid randomness altogether if at all possible(ie in a game that requires a certain percentage of loss like gambling you can't make it entirely about skill or you won't be able to rip people off). Judge of skill aside it's still annoying to do poorly in a game from no fault of your own. Likewise it's also annoying to have someone do better shearly on dumb luck if the game is competative. | |
Of course, I'll render your post moot with one point: Leftley mentioned nothing about games of skill. All he mentioned was that people despise fair fights. ;-)
| |
Of course, I'll render your post moot with one point: Leftley mentioned nothing about games of skill. All he mentioned was that people despise fair fights. ;-) He shouldn't talk in riddles with the yoda tag then :P. | |
Theodis wrote:
In a true game of skill there is no random factors like chess. And chess is just the most popular game for gamers ever made, now isn't it? How does equalizing have anything to do with skill? It seems counter to the whole point of having players get good at a game so they can beat those who aren't as good. I don't really see how it is counter to that point, but it's a point that deserves countering. **** whoever is "l33t", whoever has the "sk1llz". It's a self-defeating purpose. If someone isn't as good as you at a game of "pure skill" wherein that comparison of "skill" is the sole determinant of victory, then beating them is inherently pointless. What challenger would ever ask for a rematch in such a game? If you lost to someone once, then short of an epiphany you're not going to beat them just by trying again. Let's play a game of coin toss. Heads you win, tales I win. If I win more often than you does it mean I'm better at the game than you? No. But: How is randomly winning or losing in anyway fair? Your own rhetorical question implies that your game of coin toss is unfair. No wonder you win more often than I do--it must be rigged! How is it in any way fair? Why, in every way. Even odds, a 50/50 chance--it's the very definition of a fair game. Admittedly, in this case it's also a pretty stupid game--but how on Earth can you question its fairness? I would hardly expect every game to maintain perfectly equal odds for all sides; I would even go so far as to say that games tend to be more interesting when the odds are not precisely 50/50 (after all, my entire platform here is that it is the element of uncertainty which makes games exciting). But if the odds are consistently in favor of a particular player, then it's time for the game to shake things up--the interests of fairness dictate that while particular matches may be off-balance a bit, in the long run they should be balanced out by each other. A game which you are incapable of losing is not a game;If you have mastered the game and are better than any other player or AI you shouldn't lose. If you have mastered the game and can infallibly beat any other player or AI you shouldn't play--it's a waste of your time and your opponents', unless you're just playing in order to demonstrate and teach other players how to play better, so as to create an opponent worth playing. Otherwise, it's time to find a new game (even if it simply happens to be a self-handicapped variant of the original). Undetermined results are counter to the point of tests of skill. If I win the lotto am I more skilled in any way than someone who doesn't? If a person new to poker just randomly gets lots of good hands are they better than a skilled person who is very talented at card counting and estimating odds? If I'm lucky in an RPG and happen to manage to get a lot of high rolls am I neccissarly better than someone who doesn't? If you win a game, any game whatsoever, are you necessarily better at it than the person(s) you beat? Conversely, if you are definitively better at a game than someone, do you necessarily have to always win against them? Tests of skill are inherently pointless. "Skill" is not an objective value; it is in constant, random flux, from game to game, from move to move, from second to second. It's the fundamental fallacy of the gamer mindset: that "skill" is an objective, quantifiable value, where given appropriate measurement tools you could say "Player A has X units of skill, wherease Player B has X + 3 units of skill, therefore Player B is a better player than Player A". I wonder what an online "room" of your ideal game of "pure skill" would look like. omegadawg517: ill own ur stupid ass supapunk32: oh yeah? prove it [omegadawg and supapunk proceed to play against each other.] supapunk32: PWNED! i am soooooo better than u omegadawg517: quite so. now that we have established as fact that you are a superior player to me, we have no need to play again for quite some time supapunk32: indeed! surely there would be no need for a rematch; if "skill" varied across such a short term there would be no point to attempting to measure it Even assuming that the "skill theory" of gaming were not 100% BS, what would the point of it all be? As you lie on your deathbed looking back over your life, are you going to find solace in the fact that when you played Counterstrike 60 years ago, you were slightly better than RiPmAsTaH04 but not quite as good as boba_supreme? Your word choice in your rhetorical questions, by the way, is very appropriate. Log into a random FPS deathmatch game--real gamer's games, true tests of skill!--and you know exactly what's going through the heads of 75-90%+ of the players on that server. "If I can beat these schmucks in this game, then I'm better than them." Everyone always asks: "Why do people in online games always act like such huge assholes? How come people cheat so much? Why can't people just play the game and have fun?" Take a flying ****in' guess. Yeah, it's a real kick in the balls to be on top of your game and lose a match just because an unlucky number came up. We all need a kick in the balls now and then (some of us more often than others)--it's that one voice, whispering "Remember, you are mortal." Judge of skill aside it's still annoying to do poorly in a game from no fault of your own. Nobody ever does poorly in a game from any fault of their own--if you don't believe me, just ask them. It was lag. Their siblings distracted them. They weren't really playing to win anyways. The other guy was being cheap. He hacked his stats. The game is unbalanced. Nobody is ever going to admit to losing because they were a worse player, because everybody is just as hung up on this whole thing about proving their skills as you are (actually, most of them are even more hung up on it). As for the Yoda-riddle, as Spuz said, the emphasis was on level contests of skill. Sure, players love games that are determined by skill--when and only when they can guarantee that they are much more skilled than the opposition. They care nothing about challenge or testing oneself--they're just looking for a game which will unconditionally reassure them of their inherent worth, which to their prepubescent minds can only be expressed by those two magical words: "you win." | |
Leftley wrote:
If someone isn't as good as you at a game of "pure skill" wherein that comparison of "skill" is the sole determinant of victory, then beating them is inherently pointless. What challenger would ever ask for a rematch in such a game? If you lost to someone once, then short of an epiphany you're not going to beat them just by trying again. If too much time playing Subspace/Continuum in the Extreme Games zone tells me anything, its that even the best players lose. They don't lose as often as the worst players, but they still lose. Some players win once for every 5 times they lose. Some players lose once for every 5 times they win. Skilled players don't always win, and unskilled players don't always lose. But the game never determines who wins based on random numbers.. People just make mistakes, no matter how skilled they are. (Then of course, there's lag...) And yes, most people will lose to a skilled player several times just to have the satisfaction of beating them once. A player's skill is not a number. You can't use greater-than math on a player's skill. A player's skill is random success that the player has complete control over. But in the end, I really have no idea what any of you are talking about so I'm not going to bother trying to add anything else to this conversation. | |
Foomer wrote:
A player's skill is random success that the player has complete control over. But do they? This thread has already veered far enough off track without needing to deviate into a full-blown discussion of free will, but I think it's rather apparent that any definition of "skill" which accounts for random variance in nonrandom games still leaves quite a bit out of the player's control. When a player plays 5 games and wins 4 out of the 5, then during that one loss did they conciously decide "Well, I think 4 wins is enough, I'll just go ahead and lose this one time."? "It's your own fault you lost" is, more often than not, just a crutch winners use when they can't bring themselves to admit that they only won because they got lucky. Players very desperately want to believe that they are quantifiably better in some way than other players, and if they turn out to win then they will claim that the game was carried through their own innate skill, no matter how blatantly false this claim is--I don't doubt that some players, upon playing and winning several times at Theodis' game of coin toss, would indeed claim in earnest that they're winning because they're better at the game. Note that this is not an attempt to absolve players of personal responsibility; as you point out, margins of skill consists of trends. The fact that a player generally tends to win proves that they're a more skilled player; the fact that they still ocassionally lose under circumstances which are otherwise indistinguishable from one another indicates that there is always some small random factor supplied externally. If there wasn't such a random factor, then there would be no random variance in the outcomes--hence the examples I gave of theoretical, idealized "pure skill" games. A game which is finely balanced is very sensitive to this random factor, and can give varied results without requiring the game to supply random factors internally. Is there really that much difference between the two? The fact is, many players will be just as pissed off (or more) if they lose due to external factors than if they lose because of random factors within the game itself. Players want to feel powerful, in control, and having random factors disrupts this illusion. This can be jarring, yes, but it can also be liberating. | |
hehehe, listening to everyone bicker is hilarious. But I agree that going through like 3 hours of work to make a uber sword of 1337ness and failing sucks big time. I mean cmon, A master craftsman should NOT mess up making leather gloves =p
| |
And chess is just the most popular game for gamers ever made, now isn't it? Well it's not as popular as a video game as it is a game in general. **** whoever is "l33t", whoever has the "sk1llz". It's a self-defeating purpose. If someone isn't as good as you at a game of "pure skill" wherein that comparison of "skill" is the sole determinant of victory, then beating them is inherently pointless. Well skill isn't entirely quantifiable since player A may be able to beat player B, player B may be able to beat player C, and player C may be able to beat player A. This doesn't mean there are any problems it's just means that player A's techniques are better against B than C and B is better with tactics that work against C's style of play. There is no real way to know if you are going to win against a player unless you play against them(atleast in a fair game of skill). Plus most games tend to be fun along the way of pursuing victory. What challenger would ever ask for a rematch in such a game? If you lost to someone once, then short of an epiphany you're not going to beat them just by trying again. Uh most players are fully capable of learning. How much a player gets out of a game will vary and if a losing player plays long enough might find a hole in the winning players stratagy eventually and win. How is it in any way fair? Why, in every way. Even odds, a 50/50 chance--it's the very definition of a fair game. Admittedly, in this case it's also a pretty stupid game--but how on Earth can you question its fairness? Meh I left out one important qualifier :P. A fair test of skill is what I was getting at. it is the element of uncertainty which makes games exciting). I generally find the best part being when I go from doing poorly to being able to play a game deftly after playing long enough. Then of course trashing people at the game who think they are better than me :). If the game decides occasionally decides the outcome randomly this isn't exciting it's just a degenerate game. But if the odds are consistently in favor of a particular player, Odds shouldn't favor a player. The player should be able to have an advantage from their own personal talent which may not be the same as another player. This isn't a problem. then it's time for the game to shake things up--the interests of fairness dictate that while particular matches may be off-balance a bit, in the long run they should be balanced out by each other. How is it fun if your wins and losses aren't dictated by how good you are but how often the game deems it fair for you to win? If you have mastered the game and can infallibly beat any other player or AI you shouldn't play--it's a waste of your time and your opponents' The point of the game is just as much getting to the outcome as it is the outcome itself. But if anyone has actually mastered a game to the point of being unbeatable odds are they're probably sick of the game by this point and have made it a chore to get that good. , unless you're just playing in order to demonstrate and teach other players how to play better, so as to create an opponent worth playing. Otherwise, it's time to find a new game (even if it simply happens to be a self-handicapped variant of the original). Not really some people just play for the heck of the game. I have a friend who I regularly play chess with despite he hasn't beat me once(though he did manage to pull a stalemate once :P). Even though I'm evidenlty better than him we both enjoy playing the game just for playing the game. If you win a game, any game whatsoever, are you necessarily better at it than the person(s) you beat? Conversely, if you are definitively better at a game than someone, do you necessarily have to always win against them? Well humans make mistake and these occasionally will cost you a victory. But a person who is better at a game of skill will consistantly win. But losing due to a mistake is much better than losing from a random decision by the game. If you make a mistake you can learn from it and not repeat it in the future. Tests of skill are inherently pointless. Chess is purely a skill based game. Though many people play it for different reasons. Believe it or not some people even play these games for fun! I wonder what an online "room" of your ideal game of "pure skill" would look like. Idiots are a prevailent force. You'll find them everywhere. Though you generally find much more games with deterministic outcomes as games which have compeitions. Since the outcome of a game determined by random odds doesn't mean much about either of the players. Even assuming that the "skill theory" of gaming were not 100% BS, what would the point of it all be? Competition and entertainment. The two main points of games themselves. As you lie on your deathbed looking back over your life, are you going to find solace in the fact that when you played Counterstrike 60 years ago, you were slightly better than RiPmAsTaH04 but not quite as good as boba_supreme? I don't see how this is relevant or even makes much of a point. There are some people who devote their life to games and to be the best at them. Just look at all the various sports and stuff like checkers or chess. Then there are those people who just play them for fun! Your word choice in your rhetorical questions, by the way, is very appropriate. Log into a random FPS deathmatch game--real gamer's games, true tests of skill!--and you know exactly what's going through the heads of 75-90%+ of the players on that server. "If I can beat these schmucks in this game, then I'm better than them." Judging games of skill on the worst possible crowd isn't the best way to judge them. Nobody ever does poorly in a game from any fault of their own--if you don't believe me, just ask them. It was lag. Their siblings distracted them. They weren't really playing to win anyways. The other guy was being cheap. He hacked his stats. The game is unbalanced. Nobody is ever going to admit to losing because they were a worse player, because everybody is just as hung up on this whole thing about proving their skills as you are (actually, most of them are even more hung up on it). Uh so just because the bottom of the barrel can't cope with their loss and come up with excuses for their loss you think it's best to give them a decent excuse? As for the Yoda-riddle, as Spuz said, the emphasis was on level contests of skill. Sure, players love games that are determined by skill--when and only when they can guarantee that they are much more skilled than the opposition. As with your other arguments you seem to be trying to cater to the idiots. Granteted if you are out to make money they are a big market but these aren't the type of people I play games with. I don't want to randomly lose so that a poor sport can get their random victory every now any then. They care nothing about challenge or testing oneself--they're just looking for a game which will unconditionally reassure them of their inherent worth, which to their prepubescent minds can only be expressed by those two magical words: "you win." Who are you building your game for? The idiots who just want to win or the people who want to play a game for fun and to have concrete reasons why they lose so they can compensate for them? Here's a great article that fits pretty well with this argument. http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm | |
I'd still like to see a system where a smith has to find instructions for creating a specific item, then create new items based on those instructions. The resulting item should be based on the smith's skill, the quality of the smithing facility used, and the type of material he made the item with.
Alternatively, the smith could only build items that he'd examined, after which those items are added to the smith's build list, and he can recreate any item from that list. Gives the smith an excuse to travel around searching for new things to learn to make.
But if I had to go with one of your systems, I'd go with the first.