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

Game Talk The Bunker
41

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.[/quote]

We could have both . Yet lvls would be redundant then except for the cap rust setting. It would have to be set to function somehow with skillscore…

42

Could always just do a granularity increase where we take 100 as the cap (maybe with a debug option to let you break it?) and multiply all current skill levels by 10. That would allow for a much smoother increase without going full blown “no levels at all” mode.

43

[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:34, topic:9282”][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.[/quote]

Yes! This feels like an excellent balance between simply capping the skill and letting it increase to ridiculousness. Plus it adds lots of flexibility for mods as well as depth of character development.

44

[quote=“i2amroy, post:42, topic:9282”]Could always just do a granularity increase where we take 100 as the cap (maybe with a debug option to let you break it?) and multiply all current skill levels by 10. That would allow for a much smoother increase without going full blown “no levels at all” mode.[/quote]thats realy cool idea it sound like new encumbrance mechanic

45

Im not a coding person really so I don’t actually know if this is even possible, but here’s my idea anyway. Is it possible for engines to be run separately from each other but still be connected to the same “vehicle”? Like say two separate engines parallel to each other but both feeding into the power of the one vehicle? Or something like one engine for one set of wheels and one for a different one (both tuned to run the same, because that would be disastrous if they ran at different RPMs, etc.) Again I don’t know if this is possible in game but I could see it solving some of the problems people have with this.

46

That’s what is already being done, it’s just that building a system to do that is (IRL) a very difficult thing to do, and the skill requirement for it is likewise quite high.

47

Ok well that’s good to hear. Apologies if my comment seemed ignorant in any way.

48

I think this is the best idea, seeing as lots of people are upset by the prospect of a cap @ 10. + infinity for a debug option.

49

Suggestion: break skills into knowledge and competence.

Books would provide knowledge only. Recipes would be knowledge only.

Actually using the skill would provide competence. Having knowledge higher than competence would give a boost to competence skill gain.

Having competence higher than knowledge would give some chance at knowledge improvement when you use the skill - for example, I can learn how to kill better just by doing, but if someone told me the good spots to hit, it would be quite a bit faster than trial and error.

Damage bonuses and such would be governed by the minimum of knowledge and skill, while success rates would be governed by competence. Cap knowledge, not competence - in combat, you would get really good at not missing, but your damage wouldn’t keep going up.

Skill rust would apply to competence, not knowledge - once I know how to do something, even if I’m out of practice at it, I still know what’s to be done, eh?

50

[quote=“deoxy, post:49, topic:9282”]Suggestion: break skills into knowledge and competence.

Books would provide knowledge only. Recipes would be knowledge only.

Actually using the skill would provide competence. Having knowledge higher than competence would give a boost to competence skill gain.

Having competence higher than knowledge would give some chance at knowledge improvement when you use the skill - for example, I can learn how to kill better just by doing, but if someone told me the good spots to hit, it would be quite a bit faster than trial and error.

Damage bonuses and such would be governed by the minimum of knowledge and skill, while success rates would be governed by competence. Cap knowledge, not competence - in combat, you would get really good at not missing, but your damage wouldn’t keep going up.

Skill rust would apply to competence, not knowledge - once I know how to do something, even if I’m out of practice at it, I still know what’s to be done, eh?[/quote]
That’s the best idea I’ve heard in a long while

51

Hm…I also like that idea of seperating knowledge and muscle memory of doing things. This would allow for things like increased or reduced times to create things being independant of knowing how to create them. It would be a partial nerf to book reading.

52

About Focus, Morale and Honing Skills

Consider building a gattling gun, Fallout lore.
Let’s roleplay a bit here - building an ultimate weapon, supreme in every way yet unobtainable should require a saintly ammount of belief in one’s abilities, hence the morale systems stepping up. Deploying sophisticated electronic components, utilizing cutting-edge power sources / modulators / distributors whilst experimenting with, already scarce, new-age materials is undoubtedly a task requiring monumental focus. The sheer drive, the ever-growing desire for building and maintaining weapons is simply a must, so there should be no doubt about knowledge level needed. Therefore, this sort of character should have house flies with mounted microlasers, and an AA gun stashed in the backyard, below the shed.

Now, for modifying this (CataDDA) system – you should invite some sort of experience rating. However, this modification is widely accepted, acknowledged and put to a test for as many times as you can imagine and, unfortunately, there are no “great unknowns” about it. As the matter of fact, it only recognizes morale modifiiers that directly affect primary character abilities, so it deals with far ends of the scale (“depressed”, “elated”). It cares very little for concepts such as focus, skill rust, even recipes.

The experience system dwells on two main principles:

  • it goes to show just how much the character has “grown” into the fantasy setting, therefore adventuring;
  • it’s a pointer for accomplished class-driven characters, and their roles in chosen organizations or governments.

Now, let’s reconsider that gattling gun.
Being that CataDDA is based upon skill improvement and streamlined progression through survival, there should be a hat and a cap to suffice. If this was true, the game would acquire yet another piece of the realism puzzle. If an ordinary character was to obtain a blueprint for a prototype-gattling-gun, he’d fail to make any sense of it. However, this sort of possesion would be a prized one, only to a party whom it concerns. Therefore, our character would face a true end-tier item piece that actually is a challenge to follow, or trade for something of equal value (to his/her character build).

If the “hat” was at 10/99, meeting all the requirements in order to begin with such a grand-scale project should be considered an eleven (11). I’m not gonna dork the night away with details, because it considers skill expertise. The prototype weapon is only built after successfuly creating all the components after a series of testing and upgrades made to advanced pieces of weaponry and tools. Once the last piece of the puzzle is there and the gattling gun is unveiled, the skill clock shows midnight (12) – and the character has mastered the skill.

Or, we could have it vanilla. Let’s gather the i(ce)deas before the icecream melts. :slight_smile:

53

[quote=“deoxy, post:49, topic:9282”]Suggestion: break skills into knowledge and competence.

Books would provide knowledge only. Recipes would be knowledge only.

Actually using the skill would provide competence. Having knowledge higher than competence would give a boost to competence skill gain.

Having competence higher than knowledge would give some chance at knowledge improvement when you use the skill - for example, I can learn how to kill better just by doing, but if someone told me the good spots to hit, it would be quite a bit faster than trial and error.

Damage bonuses and such would be governed by the minimum of knowledge and skill, while success rates would be governed by competence. Cap knowledge, not competence - in combat, you would get really good at not missing, but your damage wouldn’t keep going up.

Skill rust would apply to competence, not knowledge - once I know how to do something, even if I’m out of practice at it, I still know what’s to be done, eh?[/quote]
I suggested breaking skilling into knowledge and actual skill quite a while ago, unfortunately. Don’t think they devs liked it. :stuck_out_tongue:

54

At least a couple of others have had similar ideas, including myself. Problem is, it generally boils down to “just like the current system, but more complicated.”

55

At least a couple of others have had similar ideas, including myself. Problem is, it generally boils down to “just like the current system, but more complicated.”[/quote]
But what’s wrong with more complicated? I like complicated.

56

At least a couple of others have had similar ideas, including myself. Problem is, it generally boils down to “just like the current system, but more complicated.”[/quote]

Meh, it’s really not much more. I have Melee 3/4 27/35% and unarmed 4/2 67/2%. Everything just doubles us, and which half of the skill you check will need a little fiddling with.

Depending on how the code is written, it could be a nothing more than a few proc changes… BIG BIG if, though.

57

[quote=“deoxy, post:49, topic:9282”]Suggestion: break skills into knowledge and competence.

Books would provide knowledge only. Recipes would be knowledge only.

Actually using the skill would provide competence. Having knowledge higher than competence would give a boost to competence skill gain.

Having competence higher than knowledge would give some chance at knowledge improvement when you use the skill - for example, I can learn how to kill better just by doing, but if someone told me the good spots to hit, it would be quite a bit faster than trial and error.

Damage bonuses and such would be governed by the minimum of knowledge and skill, while success rates would be governed by competence. Cap knowledge, not competence - in combat, you would get really good at not missing, but your damage wouldn’t keep going up.

Skill rust would apply to competence, not knowledge - once I know how to do something, even if I’m out of practice at it, I still know what’s to be done, eh?[/quote]

I like this, but for the most part personally I like the current system where we have the speed record threads and the god threads and everything else, just feels like a base part of cataclysm to me, which puts me on the side of not liking the cap idea initially. I think in my current state of the game it could lead to stagnation just because of my play style, but I can also see how the current system would be boring to others or even me after long enough with a character. So my idea is maybe having that skill cap (if it goes that way) but having it be a world gen option. Just a single option to enable skill capping in that world so if you want to try it one day you can, or if you want to go back to making deathmobiles of death you can.

Just thinking outloud… And I do like the thought I quoted

58

Actually I’d love to do this eventually, but it’s just a very large rewrite for a fairly small benefit. There’s a handful of other rewrites I’d like to get done before I tackle something like that.

59

Actually I’d love to do this eventually, but it’s just a very large rewrite for a fairly small benefit. There’s a handful of other rewrites I’d like to get done before I tackle something like that.[/quote]

As a programmer, I would think that such a change might involve changes in a lot of places, but that those changes would largely be both small and repetitive. Depends on how modular the code is, I suppose.

60

Actually I’d love to do this eventually, but it’s just a very large rewrite for a fairly small benefit. There’s a handful of other rewrites I’d like to get done before I tackle something like that.[/quote]
Good to know. :slight_smile: Maybe I’ll find my old post and read what I said back then. It has been quite a while.