G33X Nexus Entertainment > Precursors
Experience system
whitelynx:
This is a good point. If you think about it, what we're doing in our basic game design is bringing more and more player-skill-based elements into an RPG-style game. (character-skill-based) The more player skill is involved, the more enjoyable it is, and the wider appeal it has. On the other hand, we want to balance the two, because it is still a simulated universe, an RPG. We can't have all the 1337 players going around getting headshots on every other person in the game and getting away with it.
Dave
Morgul:
--- Quote from: "whitelynx" ---[...] We can't have all the 1337 players going around getting headshots on every other person in the game and getting away with it.[...]
--- End quote ---
Too true. Here's my idea: We have character accuracy and player accuracy work like this:
As the character's accuracy improved, the radius of where it might actually hit (instead of where the crosshairs are) would diminish. (obviously the picture above would be for a character who's a really bad shot.)
This way, it matters how good the player is, how often they've played thier charactr (to kno how good they are with certain weapons) and how accurate the character is.
Also, another thing to note is that to me, if the bullet hits, it hits.... I don't want to see bullets going through a character, just because they missed his 'AC', or something.
contingencyplan:
morgul:
--- Quote ---
As the character's accuracy improved, the radius of where it might actually hit (instead of where the crosshairs are) would diminish.
--- End quote ---
This is exactly what I had in mind.
whitelynx:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
The reason for a hard-coded ceiling is that regardless of how much we do a "law of diminishing returns," the function will still go towards infinity. The player, given enough time, will be able to have 100% precisely accurate aim.
[Precision = reprodibility; accuracy = correctness. They are mutually independent - if you throw 5 darts and they all hit in the same area on the board, then you are precise, even if none hit the bull's eye. On the other hand, if all 5 land at random points on the board, but one hits in the middle of the bull's eye, then you are accurate.]
Thus, given enough time, the player can eliminate the whole reason for having skills - to introduce the character's effect on gameplay. Then, we have the l337s going around and headshotting everybody.
whitelynx:
--- Quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
It's not that they aren't effective - they're as effective as real-life is. However, as advanced as they are, they still are no match for a combat situation. I would still say there's a diff between firing a weapon when you know you can't be hurt and firing that weapon knowing that if you do something wrong, you're dead. The simulator will give you experience (using the term loosely) in the general use of a weapon, while the real life experience will teach you the art of actually using it.
whitelynx:
--- Quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
I very much like this idea, especially in conjunction with the simulator. I think that we could award more experience when you are trained by a person, rather than by a computer / NPC.
~Brian
Morgul:
Hrm.. I like these ideas. However, we *do* need a hard limit.
Note on simulators: I think that if you spent your entire life simulating how to use a gun, you might be better at it then a veteran soldier... However that soldier has only been using it for ten to fifteen years, you've been doing it for thirty.... That's a large time difference. I think that simulators should have a quicker falloff on diminishing returns then actual combat, but that's the only difference. If you spend more time in a simulator eventually you'll get as good as someone who's been in the field for three months.... but it might take you five, or six to get that good. (It's like real life)
Also, don't foget the player aspect; They themselves are affected by the thought of thier character's death. (and the desire to avoid that). I bet that they will perform worse in the real thing till THEY gain experiance... regardless of character stats.
fehknt:
--- Quote ---the function will still go towards infinity
--- End quote ---
Um, not all. It's not going to be a really often used calculation (compared to the physics stuff, for example), so it should be ok to use a "hard" calculation like a logarithm... Which does not approach infinity in the limit as time goes to infinity. EG: if the max is 100 skill level, something like (new skill level)=(old skill level)+ln(101-old skill level). that way, you gain skill quickly as you learn the ovbious things about said skill, but eventually, you just can't learn any more, when you are adding the ln(1)=0.
You can get more complicated than this, but this is a simple example of a function that will act as needed without a "hard limit", there is simply a point that the function does not go above, ever.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version