Heads-up: Mechanics rebalance -> balance-cap on skills

[Schilcote]

If there’s a way to bypass a skill-cap, it should be through the Savant trait. That would actually make it somewhat useful.

That actually sounds really interesting.

Maybe there should be “Genius,” “Star Athlete,” etc… traits that raise the skill caps?

[PropaneSoup]

It does sound interesting, but I think it’d be better just as the single Savant trait. You learn extra fast in your best skill, and you can go past the cap with just that one skill.

Could be interesting, though with the recent skill-gain slowdown, getting to 10 is going to be hard enough to begin with. At least for combat based skills.

[Valpo]

[quote=“Schilcote, post:15, topic:9282”]I’d say we ought to allow stats to increase by things other than mutations and silly easter-eggs (very slowly, with large amounts of work involved, and maybe still caps). Your 6-strength lawyer or whatever is going to pack on a little muscle after a few months of beating up zombies and hauling V12 engines around.

So while your super-badass might max out his skill in zombie punching specifically, he can still improve by just getting generally stronger and more dexterous… but it’d be a much lower work-reward ratio than building skills. I imagine similar logic can apply to intelligence and perception too.

It’d also make some sense to have more need to consume food as a penalty for more extreme strength scores. And maybe superintellgent characters could… get bored more easily or something. Maybe we need a boredom mechanic.

Maybe strength could be trained up to 15 or 20 by just making strength checks (smashing things, hitting things, lifting things…) and then going past that requires advanced training techniques or the use of steroids or blood doping or something like that.[/quote]

a value of 15 is to be considered superhuman/human max ~
so going to 20 by training alone is not sensible.

your str max by training should be tied to your aptitude which might be tied to your starting stats for example.
Reaching superhuman stats should require mutations or implants.

That aside i am not oposed to stat training… it would also make it so people might consider starting with skill lvls instead of pumping everything into theire stats as they d be trainable too now.

Maybe strong agile inteligent perceptive ~ traits could be added to raise the human aptitude like a mutation would so you can train it a little higher … the negative as well… poor str etc.

[KA101]

[quote=“Valpo, post:23, topic:9282”][quote=“Schilcote, post:15, topic:9282”]I’d say we ought to allow stats to increase by things other than mutations and silly easter-eggs (very slowly, with large amounts of work involved, and maybe still caps). Your 6-strength lawyer or whatever is going to pack on a little muscle after a few months of beating up zombies and hauling V12 engines around.

So while your super-badass might max out his skill in zombie punching specifically, he can still improve by just getting generally stronger and more dexterous… but it’d be a much lower work-reward ratio than building skills. I imagine similar logic can apply to intelligence and perception too.

It’d also make some sense to have more need to consume food as a penalty for more extreme strength scores. And maybe superintellgent characters could… get bored more easily or something. Maybe we need a boredom mechanic.

Maybe strength could be trained up to 15 or 20 by just making strength checks (smashing things, hitting things, lifting things…) and then going past that requires advanced training techniques or the use of steroids or blood doping or something like that.[/quote]

a value of 15 is to be considered superhuman/human max ~
so going to 20 by training alone is not sensible.

your str max by training should be tied to your aptitude which might be tied to your starting stats for example.
Reaching superhuman stats should require mutations or implants.

That aside i am not oposed to stat training… it would also make it so people might consider starting with skill lvls instead of pumping everything into theire stats as they d be trainable too now.

Maybe strong agile inteligent perceptive ~ traits could be added to raise the human aptitude like a mutation would so you can train it a little higher … the negative as well… poor str etc.[/quote]

14 is a Good human adult. 15-20 are technically possible for humans, but represent such devotion to the stat that you’re neglecting significant other aspects of life, and it shows (you’re paying penalty rates–2:1 points:stat or so). Olympic-level powerlifters have 15+ ST, for example, but spend all their time building that ST so their skills, etc suffer.

[Valpo]

So if we do stat training we should softcap them at 15 and hardcap at 20 ± mutations?

Trainable stats would realy feel more realistic and make skills at chargen more worthwhile.

[KA101]

[quote=“Valpo, post:25, topic:9282”]So if we do stat training we should softcap them at 15 and hardcap at 20 ± mutations?

Trainable stats would realy feel more realistic and make skills at chargen more worthwhile.[/quote]

Any stat ground above 14 would, by that metric, also have stat rust. I’m thinking Vanilla, no int-cap.

The real problem is preventing statups from becoming a minmax thing: “oh I’ll just invest these points in traits that aren’t mutable, and then grind grind grind my character to have good stats and skills. Then I’ll complain that I’m too powerful.” Or, “oh, I don’t wanna risk my char until I’ve ground up my stats.”

Less grinding more gameplay.

[Chaz]

Alrighty, here’s a couple of things I have thoughts on:

Firstly, having the Skill Cap in the Debug menu sounds like a fair deal. On that note renaming the Debug menu to the Balance menu is fine by me!

Secondly and more importantly, I would love for impossibly awesome vehicles to still be a thing even if the skill caps are put in place, as I’ve never been able to survive long enough to build even a basic vehicle yet, and would still like to have the opportunity to some day make a monster moth tank, haha.

I’d agree with a couple of the suggested changes - perhaps the best bet would be do do away with the skill-based math that determines how many engines you can put on a vehicle (Seeing as you can only install a second engine at level 10 anyways, according to the math) and instead have it so that hitting level 10 grants a sort of perk that allows you to install as many engines as you want on a vehicle (Seeing as it’d take a fair amount of work to get to 10 anyways).

Heck, maybe there could be perks for each skill at like… level 5 and level 10. That may be some work, but for instance the Mechanics Level 10 perk would be like “You now understand how to jury rig multiple engines to your vehicle!” or something.

Forgive the semi-detached thoughts, it is 5am and I sort of had a moment of “Nooooo I wanna make my own mobile base eventually”.

On a final note, I am all for trainable stats. Even if I can’t achieve an RMCC-like vehicle, at least I can become a buff moth.

[Valpo]

I didn t consider complaints of other people. I am one of those that people who do not complain about skill rust. I agree that stats should also rust. About gameplay: its always needed but i never pictured catclysm as just a game.
Its of course the devs project and if the goal is to make a good and entertaining game then gameplay is important.

In that case i suggest we abollish all skill lvling and replace it with a trait system:

Have several different types of survivor with different skillsets that play differently.
No lvling of those.
means Diversity in every game and not skillgrind at all.

[Miloch]

I’m tired so I hope I express the idea well enough. How about this… Once you hit the cap for a skill you start to earn points towards skill perks… Not having these fully implemented after change wouldn’t break the game and you could slowly add them after the system itself was added. You gain enough training in mechanics to gain another skill level (but don’t due to cap) and instead can now purchase a skill perk.

Example of skill perks:
Add additional engine to vehicle (repeatable) (each level would let you add an additional engine to any particular vehicle)
Repair expert: User less resources to repair parts.
Blueprints for end game parts.
Special Melee Moves.
Aiming action above precise.

This is not intended as a derail but as a suggested solution to some peoples concerns.

[Coolthulhu]

[quote=“Valpo, post:28, topic:9282”]In that case i suggest we abollish all skill lvling and replace it with a trait system:

Have several different types of survivor with different skillsets that play differently.
No lvling of those.
means Diversity in every game and not skillgrind at all.[/quote]

This would probably be the least gridy solution, but it would kill a great deal of the sense of progress, make optimal builds much more important (meaning you can seriously cripple yourself if you don’t spend a lot of time in chargen) and require some really clever design to make it work with crafting.

It would be a cool optional challenge mode, though.

[Valpo]

Well i think that skill lvling etc only works well in a constricted enviroment. Where you have to make tradeoffs. Do i grind this skill /my lvl here or do i cary on because i might starve / this lvl might collapse /the darkness that fololows me reaches me and consumes me. So it turns into a tactical decission and not into grind.

That or to simulate learning and progression of things like humans who are capable of such. This makes sense in a simulation where you would trade of “fun” for realism.

[quote=“Coolthulhu, post:30, topic:9282”]This would probably be the least gridy solution, but it would kill a great deal of the sense of progress, make optimal builds much more important (meaning you can seriously cripple yourself if you don’t spend a lot of time in chargen) and require some really clever design to make it work with crafting.

It would be a cool optional challenge mode, though.[/quote]

Yes it would work well within scenarios.

[Coolthulhu]

Well i think that skill lvling etc only works well in a constricted enviroment. Where you have to make tradeoffs.

That’s true, but I don’t think the game at the moment is anywhere near ready to get skill-less, especially in the mainline.
And it may actually get a “driving force” in some near time. It got a nice step in this direction lately - the harder spawn setting (currently only one stage). More things like this would force players to choose between grinding skills, clearing areas of zeds, acquiring equipment etc. making grinding not a design problem to deal with but more of a conscious decision.

[Valpo]

Yes i agree.

And then there ll be people who decide to grind when they can and then complain anyway (this is not intended as an argument;I am trying to be funny)

[kevin.granade]

[quote=“Miloch, post:29, topic:9282”]I’m tired so I hope I express the idea well enough. How about this… Once you hit the cap for a skill you start to earn points towards skill perks… Not having these fully implemented after change wouldn’t break the game and you could slowly add them after the system itself was added. You gain enough training in mechanics to gain another skill level (but don’t due to cap) and instead can now purchase a skill perk.

Example of skill perks:
Add additional engine to vehicle (repeatable) (each level would let you add an additional engine to any particular vehicle)
Repair expert: User less resources to repair parts.
Blueprints for end game parts.
Special Melee Moves.
Aiming action above precise.

This is not intended as a derail but as a suggested solution to some peoples concerns.[/quote]
That’s a really cool idea.

[Miloch]

Glad you like it.

[vultures]

Ehm, I think the actual cap should be tied with 12/99.

If someone’s to balance the sh*t out of this game and even the odds, he/she might as well consider leaving some space for future improvements on the content-end. Hard coded part (thus, following) is open-tweak’d-closed, never to be doubted again.

[troll_from_behind]

Why not lose “levels” and instead only have a skill score?

[Valpo]

Why not lose “levels” and instead only have a skill score?

That would be basicly the same with the differense of lvls beeing easier to read.

[Coolthulhu]

[quote=“troll from behind, post:37, topic:9282”]Why not lose “levels” and instead only have a skill score?

That would be basicly the same with the differense of lvls beeing easier to read.[/quote]

Not necessarily. The way I understood it, the skill level wouldn’t be rounded to levels.

It could be useful - at the moment difference between skill levels is rather big. Notice that when your melee skill jumps from 2 to 3, suddenly there’s a big spike in competence of your character. This is not realistic, though it can be “fun” when your character “dings” (levels up).

If encumbrance levels are to be smoothed out (and I recall Kevin wanting that to happen), skills would benefit from being smoothed out too.

[Arek_PL]

a max limit of engines should be at 4 during '40 there was a plans of tank what had 8 weak engines or 2 relay strong if some engineers managed to create plans of something like that what even work in theory (never created because it was unpractical and expensive)

maybe alslo do not give 10 cap to every skill like mechanic should have higher than 10 but higher than that do not give anything more than more engines maybe perk mechanic what someone sugested will be better at giving more engines