Discussions
I got this message from Trith in ICQ, and I quote:
"Trithemius: I support skill-gain."
Sorcerers, Regligion
Fuser: What exactly do they do?
trithemius (Psi): sorcerers? mutilate some of their own inner magic to allow them to effect the world directly
trithemius (Psi): i.e more like traditional magic
trithemius (Psi): but also they can fuck with other people and things
Fuser: I gathered that much :P
trithemius (Psi): these guys might be your monster makers :/
Fuser: I'm just wondering how to make the tradeoffs.
trithemius (Psi): they might also subtly ruin other people's gifts instead of sacrificing their own
Fuser: It would be good if it fit properly IC.
trithemius (Psi): i figure, if skills = inner magic, then they have less skills
trithemius (Psi): having "damaged" themselves ritually to obtain their powers
Fuser: Hrm.
Fuser: Like cutting an arm in half to get three arms, but two of them are only half as strong as a regular arm?
trithemius (Psi): argh
Fuser: hehe
trithemius (Psi): I'll cut YOUR.. aw fuck it
Fuser: heh
Fuser: It sounds good and all.
Fuser: I wonder if it's enough "IC"
trithemius (Psi): another thing is we probably don't wanna say "OR YOU COULD BE AN EVILLY SORCERER"
trithemius (Psi): i reckon so :/
trithemius (Psi): if we can make a skill = inner magic connection :\
Fuser: Are they necessarily evil?
trithemius (Psi): nah
trithemius (Psi): they are just unnatural
trithemius (Psi): and make other people uneasy
trithemius (Psi): and.. might be undermining the very fabric of reality
trithemius (Psi): you know :/
trithemius (Psi): the usual :\
Fuser: Can they make the different sacrifice? Screw over others instead of losing it themselves, keep the points, but result in creating twisted monsters or something.
trithemius (Psi): i figure people can learn to do that
Fuser: And if they do it that way, have to "feed" occasionally
trithemius (Psi): but they need to give of themselves.. ooh
trithemius (Psi): that is kinda cool
trithemius (Psi): hrm
trithemius (Psi): maybe they need to make initial sacrifices to get the "basic" powers
trithemius (Psi): but need to do more and more to get further powers
trithemius (Psi): and its a choice of fuck themselves or fuck others
trithemius (Psi): and most choose to fuck others?
trithemius (Psi): that's where the "feeding" to sustain their powers comes int
trithemius (Psi): into it.
trithemius (Psi): sound grood?
Fuser: So even if they -don't- fuck others, they will be seen suspiciously, if not as evil, regardless.
trithemius (Psi): yeah
trithemius (Psi): its like... fuck man.. why would you fuck yourself like that :x
Fuser: "But I've never hurt anyone!" "Yeah, yeah."
trithemius (Psi): like.. hacking your own arm off or something..
trithemius (Psi): "not yet, you sick fuck"
trithemius (Psi): "he did -that- to himself, what will he do to -us-?"
trithemius (Psi): and it might also make people with "normal" magic feel uneasy..
Fuser: In order to start it, they -have- to get themselves the first time.
trithemius (Psi): yep
Fuser: Once they have it, they can use it to get others.
trithemius (Psi): yep
Fuser: That will also reduce their argument of "I haven't done anything to anyone"
Fuser: "It is the gateway drug you bastard"
Fuser: "Reefer madness"
Fuser: We could just NOT advertise it.
Fuser: People figure it out, or discover it.
trithemius (Psi): yes
Fuser: "What does this old book say"
trithemius (Psi): that is what i think
trithemius (Psi): talk about it in "fiction" about the world
Fuser: Nod.
trithemius (Psi): if someone asks "hey can i be one of these guys" we say "yes but there are mechanical sacrifices" and if they say "no prob" we go "cool"
trithemius (Psi): but not lots and lots of them :/
Fuser: A person could figure it out on their own, but it would be easier(maybe) to read how in a book, if you could find one.
Fuser: Maybe have a few different ways of doing it?
Fuser: Same effect, but there isn't the "one way"
Fuser: Not that any of them should be obvious or easy.
Fuser: That could mesh with the "becoming gods" thing.
trithemius (Psi): :o
trithemius (Psi): yes :x
Fuser: Some may think they are on their way to becoming gods.
trithemius (Psi): some sorcerers might see themselves as taking up "divine creative power"
trithemius (Psi): "look at what i have made!"
trithemius (Psi): *hideous shambling beasties*
Fuser: Hell, the/a church may have a cabal of priests in it that believe such.
trithemius (Psi): hehe
Fuser: Church corruption
trithemius (Psi): I need to think more about the structure of the church..
trithemius (Psi): temple
trithemius (Psi): whatever
trithemius (Psi): (tends to say temple to avoid people assuming the priests are like catholics)
Fuser: Will the empire have a single unified church?
trithemius (Psi): the Temple are the dudes who are trying to incorporate all the gods into one place of worship?
trithemius (Psi): that was my original idea
trithemius (Psi): there might be sub groups of priests
trithemius (Psi): hrm..
trithemius (Psi): thinks about theology..
Fuser: I was thinking more along the lines of the empire had this/these religious groups, but another empire elsewhere in the world would have a very different church, or something more like the protestant splintering we see today.
trithemius (Psi): oh yeah
trithemius (Psi): i expect that the priest of the islands are like: "Keep away from our gods you fucking thieves!"
Fuser: Do the gods ever do anything?
Fuser: Or do they mostly float around and shit out meteors or something? \\
Fuser: Hell, one foreign empire might be headed up by an ancient, nigh-immortal sorcerer who believes themselves to be a god, and the temple there is based on -them-, and is synonymous with government.
trithemius (Psi): hehe
trithemius (Psi): i figure that the gods do stuff if people ask
trithemius (Psi): that is what priests do
trithemius (Psi): ask the gods for help
trithemius (Psi): and the gods often give it
trithemius (Psi): i am not sure if the priests have a special power to talk to the gods - or if people just like to go to the priests :)
trithemius (Psi): the priests might even think they have a special power..
trithemius (Psi): but they probably don't
trithemius (Psi): however social convention is pretty strong and so people will tend to let priests handle talking to the gods
trithemius (Psi): perhaps the gods adapt themselves to what people like? :)
trithemius (Psi): "oh these guys like priests.." :D
trithemius (Psi): i'm keen for the "actual truth" about the gods to be unknown to most people in-game
trithemius (Psi): people tend to believe what they are taught and what their traditions are
Fuser: nod
trithemius (Psi): i figure most people will be "imperial" and so pro-temple, pro-priest
trithemius (Psi): other people might be less so though
Fuser: One thing about the foreign empire's religion is how alien it would seem to most people. "WTF? God's aren't people. Your shit is fake"
trithemius (Psi): :)
Fuser: And to the people from that culture, they have basically had their god, their government and their whole people and culture completely dissed"
trithemius (Psi): nod
Fuser: Good for the strife :P
Fuser: "Our god is real. He performs great miracles" :P
Plot Details
Fuser: We should have some islands with more primitive island people.
trithemius (Psi): why?
trithemius (Psi): and: define "primitive"
Fuser: And as the players discover them, they destroy their culture through contact :P
trithemius (Psi): :P
Fuser: "What ever happened to those primitize island people?" :P
Fuser: tive :\
trithemius (Psi): :O
Fuser: Just something to make the world seem more alive and changing due to events.
Fuser: I'd like all sorts of stuff like that. A world that responds in significant ways to events and player actions.
trithemius (Psi): nod
trithemius (Psi): well primitive nice people could be happy fisherpeople
trithemius (Psi): who do not pay taxes and stuff
trithemius (Psi): and a all happy happy
trithemius (Psi): and then their island gets turned into an outpost or a mine or something
trithemius (Psi): and they pay tax
trithemius (Psi): get crime
trithemius (Psi): get police
trithemius (Psi): basically turn to suck :/
Fuser: hehe
Fuser: And get exploited for labor, get land confiscated, etc.
trithemius (Psi): yeah
Fuser: "This here is some good mining, these houses need to go"
trithemius (Psi): "that is our favourite hill! the village meets there!"
*barracks and governors house gets built on it*
Fuser: It would be awesome if some player found it, and laid claim or something, and was getting profits off it, and then gets to see how the people that live there end up because of him :P
trithemius (Psi): yes :>
Fuser: I am making teh monies! Oh noes, these neat people that live there and were happy are now ruined! What have I done?!
Fuser: That's the sort of stuff I'd love to see in a server :P
Fuser: It would make it feel like you really DID have an impact on things, and were responsible for things.
trithemius (Psi): yep
Fuser: And the world would be a hell of a lot more interesting that some lame static backdrop of Ultima
trithemius (Psi): yup
trithemius (Psi): things that happen without people paying attention AND things that happen because of people's attention
Fuser: "Get used to the scenery, kids, 'cause it ain't gonna change."
trithemius (Psi): and NOT *nothing* ALL THE TIME
Fuser: Yup yup yup
Fuser: If people don't pay enough attention to increasing spawns of monsters in some area, they may miss noticing the BAD THINGS happening there :P
trithemius (Psi): yep
EFD pretends he is a big boy and can use the potty like the rest of us. Sting collects the feces in a jar for later use.
<Fuser> Anyway, the topic now is skill levels, skill gains and the related issues.
<EFD> Ideally, skills should gain in *some* way over time. However, I think we can all agree that the default UO system of powergaming sucks.
<Iocus> how is gain going to be done instead of the current which is by use
<Fuser> Well, I like the idea of skills going up with use.
<EFD> Damned if I know. Brainstorming time!
<Fuser> But the system is teh poop.
<Fuser> It's realistic.
<Fuser> Just like IRL, if you sit there and practice at something a lot, you get better.
<Fuser> But it makes for tedious clickfest gameplay.
<Iocus> Indeed.
<Iocus> We have about three ways we can have them gain:
<Iocus> Preset stats you choose at the beginning, STATIC! Except for some application work, MAYBE. But tough luck if you want to get better while there are no GMs?.
<Iocus> Alternatively!
<Iocus> Use -> Gain. With diminishing returns. See: UO.
<Iocus> Three, aka the hard one:
<Iocus> "XP" given out by GMs?, then allocated using a custom script.
<Iocus> Or given out through some other activity
<Fuser> We could give out weekly allotments of distributable skillpoints as well.
<Iocus> Nod. Same idea.
<EFD> Going for three, the question is how to give out the aforementioned XP in a fair manner that doesn't lead to players sucking up when GMs? are around and lazing about otherwise.
<Iocus> Weekly allotment works.
<EFD> Weekly to everyone? Or just players who've been active within the past week? A set amount for everyone, or varying amounts depending on activity?
<Iocus> Hm.
<Iocus> I will of course.. recommend my kudos system again, but it is prone, and infact, simply favoritism between players.
<Fuser> I do want to avoid senior players who have less time on being far outstripped by some newbie who is on more.
<Iocus> everyone would get 2 votes, can't vote for anyone twice, or yourself.
<Iocus> Counted monthly.
<Iocus> And then all votes -> XP in this case.
<Iocus> I know the flaws in it, but look at what it encourages.
<Fuser> Hrm
<Iocus> Which is sort of.. interconnectivity. Ah, it is also anonymous
<EFD> That would, alas, probably IMO lead to players forming cliques to boost up each other. :/
<Fuser> We could also have weekly allotments and use kudos as a bonus.
<Fuser> Yeah, that is a problem, too.
<Iocus> However, EFD. A clique would gain less kudos than a more open armed group.
<EFD> Besides the whole "I had some extreme RP with this guy, but he's an asshole in IRC" or "so-and-so could use some boosts to their mining".
<Iocus> A clique of 6 would only get a maximum of maybe 6. But an open armed player playing with a wide variety could get more.
<Fuser> True, but people may eschew the "potential gamble" for the "smaller, sure thing".
<Iocus> true.
<Iocus> Though with two..
* Iocus tries to calculate..
<Iocus> a player would have a MAXIMUM of 6. If everyone in the group voted on ONE person.
<Iocus> In fact the average would be... three, right?
<Iocus> Wait.. maximum of 5..
<Iocus> ...
* Iocus brain explodes
<EFD> As far as additional skill gains besides the weekly allotment, do you think there should be skill bonuses for quests? (Preferably relating to the specific content of each quest, ideally varying from player to player depending on what specifically they did.)
<Iocus> yeah..
<Iocus> exact skill bonuses
<Iocus> instead of the allotment
<EFD> I say alongside allotment, because, again, we wouldn't want this to lead to players hanging around waiting for a GM to show up before showing off their mad RP skillz.
<Iocus> Yeah.
<Iocus> Maybe a maximum to the bonus too.
<Fuser> Actually
<Iocus> So players can't get like +ONE MILLIONS
<EFD> Just a minor addition because, hey, quests are fun. And everyone loves a good quest.
<Fuser> I think the kudos shouldn't possibly be more than the allotment.
<Iocus> Actually..
<Fuser> Or even equal to it.
<Iocus> EFD You are right...
<Iocus> And I think that is a reason why there shouldn't be a skill bonus in quests.
<Iocus> Oddly enough.
<Iocus> ...
<Iocus> I need food.
<Fuser> And you'd have to get the majority of the votes to get that much.
<Fuser> :\
<Iocus> IOCUS NEEDS FOOD BADLY
<EFD> Or, since on a quest we have a rare situation where all the assembled players are being observed equally be a GM for a set period of time, the skill bonuses coming from there *could* be scaled in relation to how actively people RP, or unique things they might do (to reward people who do more than stand in the crowd and kill monsters).
<Iocus> And there are scary racoons outside.
<Iocus> Fair enough EFD.
<EFD> Oh, and after I type that block of text, I see you deciding the whole idea ain't your cup of tea after all. :P
<Iocus> I just worry about intrinsic-extrinsic values and all. ^-^
<EFD> Ditto. But we may as well. UDUO started off informally based on common sense, and it lead to things becoming increasingly codified to be absurd. :/
...
<EFD> Weekly allotment: yea or nay?
<Iocus> allotments
<Iocus> I don't get a vote
<EFD> Gains on quests: yea or nay?
<Fuser> I am kind of worried about distributed points, though.
<Fuser> The potential for real and imagined bias is there.
<EFD> I know. :/
<Iocus> Favoritism
<Iocus> ALWAYS
<Iocus> WILL
<Iocus> EXIST
<Fuser> Of course.
<Fuser> That's why I'm worried.
<Iocus> All you can do is argue you are being fair, and they will argue you aren't.
<Iocus> This occurs everywhere there is a social system.
<Iocus> If you don't want a social system you will have to deal with the repetitiveness
<EFD> That's why we need to come up with rules that we don't like, but will restrict us to the best of their abilities from our conscious or unconscious favoritism.
<Iocus> that such a choice will incur
<EFD> And believe you me, all of us will be biased bastards as GMs?, no matter how much we try to stay objective.
<Fuser> Wrorong :\
<Fuser> I am Seņor Objective :\
<Iocus> I'm a jaded sort about objectivity.
<Fuser> I am like a gaping goatse of objectivity.
<EFD> Now, there's the most objective way of all to do it: weekly allotments, an identical amount for anyone who's logged in within the past seven days. No gains on quests, unless it's a base amount for everyone, and then, we make sure we give it to *everyone* who's been on the quest, even if they logged out or logged in at a later point.
<EFD> Thus we can call ourselves completely unbiased.
<EFD> But that's also kinda bland.
<Fuser> I think that should be the basic, and probably primary skillgain method.
<Fuser> We could do quest-gains, and kudos on top of that.
<Fuser> But neither should allow for more gain that the allotment.
<Fuser> than
<Fuser> Maybe combined, they could potentially equal it?
<Iocus> possibly. How will you deal with people going to more than one quest.
<Iocus> two different stats?
<Iocus> err..
<Iocus> variables
<Fuser> Well
<Iocus> with little maximums at them?
<EFD> I'd consider that "Taking an active role in the server", which is a good thing.
<Fuser> I figure combined from all quests.
<Fuser> Each quest only gives a little.
<Fuser> That way, people are encouraged to participate in more.
<Fuser> BUT
<Fuser> Remember, I don't think quests like on UL are a good idea.
<Fuser> I am aiming for the "living world", rather than "watch the movie"
<EFD> In what sense? The "Watch the GM-played chars do everything other than you hacking your way through monsters"?
<EFD> I mean, some of the mystery-stuff, like when Aliai and Valk would be digging up clues on the Black Circle, that was player-driven fun.
<Fuser> No OP unless you eat noodles in your computer
<EFD> ...man, we had some good times.
* EFD goes on a nostalgia trip.
<Fuser> Heh
<EFD> The Valk/Aliai dynamic was so fun, too, especially post-WoL?. They'd be working together, they were used to working together, they still had a bit of camaraderie, but they also rather hated each other's guts, hated each other's ideologies, and hated each other's methods.
<Fuser> I am adverse to quests that ammount to a bunch of players mobbing around.
<Fuser> At least, in most scenarios, it is innapropriate.
<EFD> It was like... Green Lantern and Green Arrow, or something.
<Fuser> Mobbing is fine if they're say, hunting monsters or whatever.
<Fuser> But mobs of people hanging around while one or two make political talk is silly.
<Fuser> And I'd rather not have most things boil down to combat.
<Fuser> That, to me, is a failure.
<EFD> The thing with the mob quests is, it always leads to two or three players coming out on top. They'd be the ones who make the quips and drive the action, while everyone else is reducing to standing in the back parroting them. And that's on the good ones. On the bad ones, we all just shut up and do what the GM char accompanying us tells us.
<Fuser> On the GMs? part, anyway.
<Fuser> Nod.
<Fuser> And as such, I am adverse to them.
<EFD> And there're the players who make a business of never doing anything, but being everywhere anyhow. Like that Dragon fellow. He's been around forever (pre-LoLM??), on tons of quests, and I never once heard him say anything of importance, or more than a throwaway line here and there.
<Fuser> Yup.
<Fuser> I do not want quests to be like that.
<Fuser> That is not fun :\
<EFD> Of course, we have to remember with the mobs, players like quests. Players will gravitate to a quest if it's going on. And players don't like having quests that're restricted to a grouping of specific people.
<Fuser> I think that's because, on UL, that one quest is ALL that is going on.
<Fuser> You can hardly blame them for that.
<EFD> If there's a quest going on, even if it's supposed to be a subtle investigation/debate/talky quest, it may well attract a dozen people or so.
<Fuser> "Oh, something's going on over there, as opposed to the nothing everywhere else."
<EFD> I'm not blaming them, I'm saying mobs are unavoidable. There has to be some way to handle them other than saying "Mob quests are bad, we'll do something different."
<Fuser> I dunno.
<Fuser> I think if we had more _ACTIVE_ GMs?, leading multiple simultaneous quests or different threads of the same quest, it wouldn't be that way.
<EFD> That would be ideal.
<Fuser> As opposed to the, what, -three- active GMs? on UL, at best?
<EFD> However, I think we're really getting ahead of ourselves if we think we can have coordinated simultaneous quests.
<Fuser> They need not all be coordinated.
<EFD> Even when it happened under UDUO/UL, it'd generally be the extra GMs? playing additional roles. And it showed. Cymro-played characters always stuck out like sore thumbs in Avatus quests.
<Fuser> I mean, we could have completely unrelated simultaneous events.
<EFD> That's even more idealistic. If nothing else, the two (or more) staff members would have to make sure beforehand that their plots won't be stepping on each other's toes.
<Iocus> I am sleepings now. I acnanotao tatstand awakes.
<Iocus> I cannot stand awakes.
<Fuser> Some guy is over there, talking with the governor of the region about trade of feces shipments to Sting's federation of Shits, while a few players are banding together to form a party to hunt down some evily sorcerer, and some other players are trying to break some political dissident out of a jail.
<Iocus> Also. Fuser, tell EFD about the idea of minimalismstuff.
<EFD> Although it could also be interesting... like if there's one goodish quest and one more morally iffy one, or one that involves bashing and another one that's more diplomatic...
<Fuser> Iocus thinks his penis is the minimalist ideal.
<Iocus> It is so simple.
<Iocus> You see I used an electric sander to get it nice and simple.
<Iocus> So while HUGE
<EFD> But the important thing would be that they'd have to seem equally important, so players don't think they're being shafted with one of the quests to keep them from playing with the big boys. :/
<Iocus> it is very simple, like the great columns of rome.
<EFD> And after Fuser's comment, I just realized my last statement could be read with some horrid innuendo. :(
<Fuser> hehe
<Iocus> Thats prison lingo, son.
<Iocus> and I am only really acting as consultant, I am going to take my cash and leave.
<Fuser> It is a living world. What players get involved in should match their characters.
<EFD> So, other than your phallus, what's this minimalism idea?
<Fuser> As I said, the world will have numerous things for players to get involved in, and they can pretty much take their pick.
<Iocus> Fuser will explain. Alternatively, think of "situations" or seed events.
<Fuser> Iocus tuoksuu kukilta ja hyppii iloisesti puutarhassa, je.
<Iocus> yeah...
<Iocus> sure.
<EFD> But we should also cater to all types of players. No one should feel pressured to act one (probably the most generic) way in order to participate in the best stuff.
<Fuser> Iocus smells like flowers and is jumping happily in the garden, yeah.
<Fuser> Nod.
<EFD> I mean, there were so few evil players on UL (and those were generally the really experienced RPers? who already had less morally ambiguous chars) because of the whole getting ostracized and "facing IC consequences" bit.
<Fuser> Heh
<EFD> Which was nonsensical, since "good" players were inherently always given outs by the GMs?, and never faced any consequences.
<Fuser> "IC consequences" usually meant "Treachury sensed"
<Fuser> Yeah, I know.
<Fuser> I do not want a carebear world.
<EFD> I've been thinking... there should be multiple big hangouts for players. We can have a seedy, Buc's Den-esque section of the main town with a tavern/gambling den/whatever for players to congregate in. And if a lot of people are idling there, the GM would use that as the starting place for running a bad-themed quest.
<EFD> After all, one of the reasons we had so few "evil" quests on UL (besides ones specifically submitted or designed for certain players) was that there'd be no way to just have something start up without tons of plain-vanilla PCs? around to overhear.
<Fuser> Hrm
<EFD> But it'd have to be clear that the GMs? endorsed this location, otherwise players would ignore it and hang around the standard "outside the bank" place as per usual.
<Fuser> One thing about IC consequences I was thinking of would simply be stuff like the happy fishervillage. A player could decide "heck, if I lay claim to this place and bring a bunch of miners and crap in, it will seriously impact these people's lives", and not do it, but then someone else would come along and do it and reap the mad profits. So players might say "fuck it, someone else will just do it anyway", and cynically do it.
<Fuser> Thus we encourage less carebear stuff.
<Fuser> Since we won't be punishing people for "omg that was not nice" crap. Like some Paulon's might.
<EFD> That works too. Bad things should, inherently, offer more tangible rewards. We're still likely to get a majority of roleplayers playing good chars, because players are so indoctrined as to what they think they can get away with.
<Fuser> We would make it very clear, I think.
<Fuser> And, as Sting mentioned, the possibility of slave trade :P
<EFD> o_O
<Fuser> And yeah, I know.
<Fuser> Slavers.
<EFD> That's... so like Sting. :P
<Fuser> Hehe
<Fuser> But it's a good point.
<EFD> I suppose this is what the bondage gear is for? :|
<Fuser> hehe
<Fuser> StingraY?: Slavers would be cool :/
<Fuser> Fuser: Pfff
<Fuser> Fuser: They would take slaves and sell them to people? Who would buy slaves?!
<Fuser> StingraY?: Who wouldn't
<Fuser> Fuser: "I hath sensed thy immoral treachury, game-culture-that-I-am-supposed-to-be-a-part-of!
<Fuser> Fuser: "
<Fuser> Fuser: "Look at me with my modern Earth sensibilities!"
<Fuser> Fuser: I figure we'll be seeing a lot of that :P
<Fuser> I definately want to break people out of that.
<EFD> Yeah, there'd be a practically nonexistant PC market for slaves. Even bad PCs? would be reluctant over the stigma.
<Fuser> And, sadly, most places will only have enforced such ideas as good RP.
<EFD> There's also the question of slaver PCs? abducting other PCs? into slavery. Either the players will have to have some pathetically easy way of breaking out fast, or they'll be very, very pissed off.
<Fuser> Actually, I imagine, like RL, that most PCs? won't be applicable to be slaves.
<Fuser> Unless they specify they are from groups that are being taken into slavery.
<EFD> You mean racial-based slavery, then?
<Fuser> Most would be imperial citizens and not subject to it, unless they are born into it, or are criminals.
<EFD> I thought this was just all-encompassing borderline Gorean-esque BDSM pulp fantasy slavery. :/
<Fuser> hehe
<Fuser> I am approaching this as being realistic :P
<EFD> Eh, the more I think about it, it wouldn't work. Even if we introduce slavery as a perfectly logical, unquestioned part of society that's existed for generations and most respectable families have plenty of slave, many of whom are fully content with their positions, the PCs? just won't be able to approach it the right way.
<EFD> There's RPing?, but there's also accounting for the players' inherent biases. :/
<Fuser> <Fuser> Fuser: "Look at me with my modern Earth sensibilities!"
<Fuser> <Fuser> Fuser: I figure we'll be seeing a lot of that :P
<Fuser> :P
<Fuser> I am well aware of players weaknesses :P
<EFD> It's just one of those things. Let's face it, no matter what kind of society this is supposed to be, it's going to be fantastically, ridiculously gender-equal, amounting to standards not equalled until the 20th century in the western world. Because we're never going to convince the majority of players (of either gender) that IC women should be treated as baby-making machines. :/
<EFD> ...that is a magnificently quotable line I just said. I think I'll send it to Iocus. :o
<Fuser> hehe
<Fuser> We will have all the NPCs? treat women like dirt and goggle at male PCs? who take flak from females :P
* Fuser is well aware it would _NEVER_ work
<Fuser> We'd just get a bunch of pissed off females and morally-superior feeling males who fight the evil system :P
<EFD> Zillions of 'em. That's how it works. We can't train players out of some things, no matter how good they are at RPing?.
<Fuser> I think a FEW would be able to handle it.
<Fuser> But that is definately not worth the effort
<EFD> But then those characters would be ostracized by all the radically liberal characters representing this sudden new civil rights movement.
<Fuser> hehe
<Fuser> Yup :P
<EFD> Ah well. What *was* Iocus' minimalism idea?
<Fuser> Something about how his incredibly small penis was just a minimalist ideal, and not innadequate.
<Fuser> Hrm.
* Fuser isn't sure, actually.
<EFD> Whatever floats his boat. Back to skill gains, there's another thing that occured to me...
<Fuser> Oh, I think he might have meant what I was saying to begin with.
<Fuser> You have a living world with all sorts of events going on and such.
<Fuser> He is referring to that as "seed events"
<Fuser> Or "situations". Things are happening, players can get involved.
<EFD> Approximately what rate do we want this to go at? Like, say, how many weekly allotments would it take for a character to build up one of their main starting skills to GM level (or whatever level, not necessarily the max, is generally acceptable for most situations)?
<Fuser> One thing I want to avoid is having skills that are not worth much until they are in their high levels.
<Fuser> I want 50 points in a skill to be good.
<Fuser> 60 points is really good.
<Fuser> 70 is excellent, suberb, outstanding and awesome, etc etc.
<EFD> Then what, say, would be the max someone would be allowed to start at? Say, 30? 20? 40?
<Fuser> -0?
* EFD cannot compute.
<Fuser> Actually, it depends.
<Fuser> We considered having some people at the start begin as "advanced" characters.
<EFD> Let's assume for a fresh, new player, then.
<Fuser> They would hold established places, and work with less experienced players to draw them into things.
<Fuser> Nod.
<EFD> Because I assume this "advanced character" stuff is only allowed for veteran PCs? who've been around for a while beforehand.
<Fuser> I'd say around 20-30, which should be decent.
<Fuser> A warrior with a skill of 30 would be able to take on more than slimes.
<Fuser> And hit consistently.
<EFD> That sounds about right. What about skill gain rate? (On that note, perhaps there should be some restriction to how many of one's allotment points can be put into each skill per week, so people can't rapidly boost up one of their skills).
<EFD> Staring skill gain rate, that is. I assume it'll slow down after 50, and again after 60 or 70 or wherever.
<Fuser> And, as a side note, I am opposed to fighting coming down to "swordsmanship" or "fencing" or whatever. I think there should be a primary combat skill that is the most important one, and affects all combat performance. Weapon skills would be subordinate to it.
<EFD> UO's supposed to have that. It's called Tactics. :|
<Fuser> Yeah, that's not what it does.
<EFD> Of course, like everything, it's screwy. :/
<Fuser> It affects damage.
<Fuser> And you still fight like a retard if you change weapons.
<Fuser> I'd say maybe 1 point a week?
<Fuser> Nah
<Fuser> I am a little worried about people reaching maximums.
<EFD> That makes 5 months realtime to reach an "average" in a skill, assuming the player puts all their points into a single thing.
<Fuser> And then points going all over the place.
<Fuser> Or being worthless.
<EFD> Yeah, it's tough to consider... we don't want people GMing? everything too fast, but we don't want to leave them being shitty forever beforehand.
<Fuser> Well, I don't want "low" skill to be shitty.
<Fuser> I would like "40-60" to be, IC, the average to above average range.
<EFD> All right, let's look at this another way... about how long should it take for the average player to get to around 50 (which we'll assume is an acceptable, respectable level to have) in their primary skill, without necessarily putting every single point they earn into it.
<Fuser> Above that is the truly talented.
<Fuser> Hrm.
<Fuser> Not sure.
<EFD> There's also the question of how many skills the average character (not a jack of all trades, but not totally focused on one and only one thing) will be concerned with, roughly.
<Fuser> I do want it to require more points to raise skills the higher they get them.
* Fuser wishes we had more people's takes on this.
<EFD> Let's simplify this even more: How long should it take for a player to get from 30 to 50 in a skill?
<Fuser> A couple months?
<EFD> Two months, let's say.
<EFD> Eight allotments.
<EFD> 2.5 points a week.
<EFD> After 50, it drops to, oh... let's say 1 point a week.
<Fuser> Well, the allotments should stay the same.
<EFD> Yeah, but we'll have a cap on how much can be put into a skill each week.
<Fuser> But skills will require more points to increase.
<Fuser> I favor increased requirements.
<EFD> I'd agree, but it's tougher to calculate. :/
<EFD> And can that be scripted?
<Fuser> We can manage :P
<EFD> Okay. :P
<Fuser> I hope so
<Fuser> we can never seem to get more than two people discussing things, for some reason :P
<Fuser> Every time, this seems to happen :P
<EFD> So, let me summarize this with some math: As I see it, the max amount of allotment points each week that you can put into a skill will raise it by this number of skill points depending on what your skill currently is: 0-20: 4 points, 20-50: 2.5 points, 50-70: 1 points, 70+: 0.5, maybe lower?
<Fuser> I feel like others are being disenfranchised :P
<EFD> Heh. :P
<EFD> So, five weeks or so if a player decides, from zero, that they want to get a hitherto unused skill up to a barely decent level.
<EFD> Save a log of this and put it up on the site, maybe. So we can get comments from the rest of the merry gang.
<Fuser> I plan to.
<EFD> Goodie. :)
...
<EFD> Now, we've come up with rough numbers for players who're investing in a single skill per allotment. The next question is, roughly how many skills will a new character be focusing on at once?
<Fuser> I can't possibly say.
<EFD> Damnit. :P
<Fuser> We plan to scrap the currently UO system.
<EFD> I'd guess 3-4.
<Fuser> Pretty much totally.
<EFD> From past experiences.
<EFD> But at the moment, it's not possible to calculate. :/
<EFD> This is one of those times when the analytical part of my brain is coming out and realizing how much it loves juggling and figuring out numbers.
<Fuser> I'd also like to have limits on how many skills one can invest in, before they start hitting "penalties" like the high-level skills get.
<EFD> I used to be great at math until I found calculus. Then I became traumatized and decided to be an abstract, artistic-centered individual instead. :/
<Fuser> So we don't have everyone bumping all the skills up.
<EFD> How many skills at a given allotment period, or how many skills total forever on the character?
<Fuser> And, them doing that also detracts from the ideal of having low skill values still meaningful.
<EFD> Additionally, we can make it so that certain skills, unless selected at the beginning, *have* to be aqquired through IC RP.
<Fuser> It should be a cross between the number of skills and how high different skills are at.
<Fuser> Nod.
<EFD> As in, to learn magic, you'll have to actually go and study with a mage. Or learn bard skills, you actually practice at a conservatory. And then your allotment points in the coming weeks are automatically taken and put in the proper skills, until you've IC "graduated".
<EFD> Hell, dare I say it, perhaps magic shouldn't be learnable from startup at all.
<Fuser> You read about the sorcerers, right?
<EFD> But that's the extremist in me talking.
<EFD> Yes. I think it's a screwy idea for the same reason I think Trith's whole proposal is screwy: skill caps in general.
<Fuser> The IC part of it, I mean.
<Fuser> The OOC skill-part I'm not worried about.
<EFD> Yeah. Iocus and I discussed a similar thing for SoR?, actually.
<Fuser> It wouldn't be open as a starting skill.
<Fuser> Excepting perhaps the potential "advanced characters"
<EFD> Ideally magic *should* be something really special, not something you can just pick from the start. Or, if you can pour points in at char creation, they should be initially worthless, but mean you have an affinity to magic, and will be able to learn quicker once you begin your IC studies or the like.
<Fuser> Fuser: I've thought of a few different ways players can encounter it.
<Fuser> Fuser: A few sorcerers will be open to people joining them on the principle of Strength in Numbers or something similar, and in a few different places you can find books that detail methods on how to do it.
<Fuser> Fuser: Those may or may not be in good condition, and you may have to piece several of them together. Or, you could kill a sorcerer and just take his books.
<Fuser> The IC idea is that EVERYONE has an affinity for magic.
<Fuser> In fact, they all use it.
<EFD> Ideally, what percentage of player characters do you see being mages (and frankly, I see it as mages and non-mages; no "magic-users" with plenty of other skills who no one really considers mages since they just use it for healing and teleporting while whacking things)?
<Fuser> I dunno.
<Fuser> I don't want to restrict it OOC.
<Fuser> So it depends on the players.
<EFD> Because people love to play mages, and the number'll skyrocket if it's too easy to be one.
<Fuser> I know.
<EFD> Of course, worrying too much puts us in the UL necromancy situation, where years have gone by and they never dared release it.
<Fuser> Actually, I'm surprised that there aren't more mages on UL.
<Fuser> Especially considering how biased the system is in their favor.
<Fuser> And how much it sucks for everyone else.
<Fuser> It's not just a perk to be a mage, everyone else gets a serious shafting.
<EFD> Well, just about everyone is a semi-mage.
<EFD> Which I loathe from an RPing? perspective.
<Fuser> "Watch me miss 10 out ot 10 times to hit this slime"
<Fuser> Yeah
<Fuser> I really don't like that.
<Fuser> "I am not a mage, I just used all these spells and amazingly convenient artifacts."
<EFD> But really, just about every experienced, veteran character on UL, even the ones who wear full armour and carry swords and ride horses, even if IC they never identify as mages and no one thinks of them as magic users, they've probably got at least average magery.
<EFD> Oh, and the new reliance on wands and potions. :|
<EFD> Which, thankfully, kicked in after I was already fading out.
<Fuser> "We don't want everyone using magic, so we'll make the same effects available via other means"\
<Fuser> "..."
<Fuser> I don't think we will ever run out of things that UL did wrong to comment on.
<EFD> No, probably not. :/