G33X Nexus Entertainment > Precursors

Experience system

(1/4) > >>

fehknt:
Now, it's been a given that players will gain experience and gain levels and get better, like any RPG.  

I'd put forth two propositions:  1) experience is a linear sacle, every level you need 100 XP to advance, and so to make 50th level you need exactly 5000 XP.  This makes any XP transfer setup much more feasable.  Just make it so you get less XP based on the difference in levels between the character and the (to borrow a D&D term) challenge rating of the "baddie".  Add rules for multiple "baddies" and multiple people attacking.  Tada.  Ok, it's a little more complicated than that, but I think it's a good way to go.
2) um.  I may have frogotten 2.  OH YEAH!  no "hit point" or "endurance" or things like that increasing.  Make the person harder to hit or something on higher levels.  People don't magically get harder to kill as they get more experienced: just because you're good doesn't mean that you will take more shots to the chest to die, but it may mean that it's harder to hit you.
2.5) Maybe this makes items/armor particularly important? Well, in a war zone, don't you think that armor is going to be pretty important in real life?

Lets hear other people's thoughts on how advancement should work!

Morgul:
G.U.R.P.S.

Atleast that's what we're thinking of adapting. (It was suggested by our friend Cory.... I don't know much about it right now.)

I'll post more when I've had some sleep, and can think more.

contingencyplan:
Well, I'm not familiar with the GURPS system, since I never really got into the D&D style of RPGs.  I have a passing familiarity with the D20 system from playing Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, but that's neither here nor there.

However, from a game standpoint, I was kinda thinking of experience as a continuous function, rather than a discrete one.  By "continuous" I mean that you notice yourself gradually getting better, rather than having to wait until you "level up" to see a difference.  This will especially work with things like aiming weapons - the more you fire your weapon, the better you get at aiming it, and the more accurate you are (e.g., less recoil, etc.).  Naturally, there's still a hard ceiling (likely weapon-specific) to keep people from being dead-accurate with a pistol at 1000 yards.  Also, there is a system of diminishing returns; you won't keep getting the same advancement in skill each time you fire your weapon and kill somebody.  

A problem with this system: it is potentially fairly easy to abuse.  If we make firing the weapon the basis for advancement in skill with the weapon, then people will simply stand around firing their guns into the air until they have the desired expertise with the weapon.  Thus, advancement in skill would be dependent upon reaching a goal.  To continue with accuracy with a weapon, then you have to be aiming at something (e.g., a simulated target or an opponent) to gain skill when you fire your weapon - you only gain skill with successful hits.  Better hits (headshots, for instance) net larger gains.

As I mentioned in the death topic, some skills can be advanced by spending time in the simulator.  The above rules (ceilings and diminishing returns) are especially evident in the simulator, since nothing beats using a real weapon in a real combat situation.  However, for gaining an initial skill with a weapon, the simulator gives the ability to learn without a potential for dying because your skill is too low.

As far as how this affects things, we could have the recoil skill, for instance, be a percentage.  The player fires a weapon with a certain amount of recoil, and the skill is then applied to that recoil force as a percentage: If a weapon has a recoil force of 10 (whatever "10" means), and the player has a recoil skill of 20 (or .20, or 20%, or whatever desired representation), then the final recoil force will be 8 (10 - (.20 * 10) = 8 ).

Personally, I think that this will make the game more realistic.  After all, in real life, we don't gain skill as levels, but as a continuous improvement over time.

~Brian

whitelynx:

--- Quote from: "contingencyplan" ---However, from a game standpoint, I was kinda thinking of experience as a continuous function, rather than a discrete one.  By "continuous" I mean that you notice yourself gradually getting better, rather than having to wait until you "level up" to see a difference.
--- End quote ---

Definitely. I would like to see experience work this way as well, since it's much more realistic.


--- Quote ---This will especially work with things like aiming weapons - the more you fire your weapon, the better you get at aiming it, and the more accurate you are (e.g., less recoil, etc.).  Naturally, there's still a hard ceiling (likely weapon-specific) to keep people from being dead-accurate with a pistol at 1000 yards.  Also, there is a system of diminishing returns; you won't keep getting the same advancement in skill each time you fire your weapon and kill somebody.
--- End quote ---

I'd almost think that the diminishing returns would provide enough of a ceiling that we wouldn't need to add hard ceilings... but that depends on how we build our equations.


--- Quote ---A problem with this system: it is potentially fairly easy to abuse.  If we make firing the weapon the basis for advancement in skill with the weapon, then people will simply stand around firing their guns into the air until they have the desired expertise with the weapon.  Thus, advancement in skill would be dependent upon reaching a goal.  To continue with accuracy with a weapon, then you have to be aiming at something (e.g., a simulated target or an opponent) to gain skill when you fire your weapon - you only gain skill with successful hits.  Better hits (headshots, for instance) net larger gains.
--- End quote ---

That sounds like a fairly good idea. Also, hitting a moving target should be worth more than hitting a stationary one. (and the faster it's moving, the more it's worth... although it would have to be movement relative to the player's view... someone running directly at you, not weaving side to side, provides a very easy target.)


--- Quote ---As I mentioned in the death topic, some skills can be advanced by spending time in the simulator.  The above rules (ceilings and diminishing returns) are especially evident in the simulator, since nothing beats using a real weapon in a real combat situation.  However, for gaining an initial skill with a weapon, the simulator gives the ability to learn without a potential for dying because your skill is too low.
--- End quote ---

I'm still a bit wary of the whole simulator thing. I like the idea as far as being able to learn things without as much risk to the character's life, but the method has to fit into the game in general.

My biggest problem with the simulators is the fact that in this day in age, simulators would be pretty damn advanced. (pretty close to real life) We have to have an excuse for _why_ they aren't as effective as real-life combat for gaining experience.

Another way to do this would be allow one character to "teach" another, passing on knowledge. They of course wouldn't be able to teach the other character more than they know themselves, but it's a way to learn new things that involves no real risk to life or health.

Dave

Morgul:
I do like this idea, and it's been kicking around in my head for a while... Including the simulators. However, how much do we weant skill to be in the hands of the character, and how much do we want it to be in the hands of the player? I mean, sure, the character needs to develop a skill with a weapon... (I'm thinking going to a simulator, and taking a basic weapons proficiency course with that weapon)... and even training accuracy... however, some of that is the player's acuracy (which iironically will get trained while his character's is)

So, how/where do we make the distinction?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page