Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
unknownxv

Concern Over Passive Vs. Active Skill Training

Recommended Posts

Disagree, as I'm sure anyone else who's played Shadowbane will. Levelling in Shadowbane was just a gate to the endgame content - PvP. By setting up a passive level system it allows players to focus on the core of the game - PvP. You still have plenty of agency - what runes you take on creation, what class promotion you take, what disc runes you take.

 

Also it seems to me people are missing some of what has been announced - diminishing returns. If you want to truly master a skill (such as crafting) then the time investment to hit max is significant over basic mastery.

At least someone came back with a practical response.

 

But what you get out of the work isn't the same as what you do, I want to do stuff to progress, and if there's something better to do, than that's one of the ways you should be progressing. It's not necessary to separate active progression so you can focus on other activities, just make those activities a way to progress.

 

I'm not against passive training, I am against passive gated training where a significant portion of progress is only available by waiting.

 

I want, well any RPG, to explore rich and various methods of training skills, growing characters and more. Passive progression just feels like a tool to sell VIP and throttle progression.

 

I'd rather have a lot to pursue than waiting and distracting while things grow passively.


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least someone came back with a practical response.

 

But what you get out of the work isn't the same as what you do, I want to do stuff to progress, and if there's something better to do, than that's one of the ways you should be progressing. It's not necessary to separate active progression so you can focus on other activities, just make those activities a way to progress.

 

I'm not against passive training, I am against passive gated training where a significant portion of progress is only available by waiting.

 

I want, well any RPG, to explore rich and various methods of training skills, growing characters and more. Passive progression just feels like a tool to sell VIP and throttle progression.

 

I'd rather have a lot to pursue than waiting and distracting while things grow passively.

 

Personally I don't see the problem - it seems like a null equation to me.  The way I see active skill training is I have to spend x time doing y to gain the next skill point.  The way I see passive skill training is I have to spend z time to get the next skill point, but during that time I can do whatever I want, crafting, pvping, or trying to stop my spawn try and vocally murder each other in the living room.

 

Whether I spend x time or z time I'm still spending time.  

 

The difference is that the passive option gives me more flexibility about what else I'm doing during that time, and I'm all about flexibility.  If I spend it crafting I get the added benefit of gear to sell.  If I spend it pvping I have the added benefit of whatever rewards I get from that.  If I spend it parenting then I have the added benefit of not going to jail for child neglect.

Edited by Jorjeis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being more flexible is convenient, convenient isn't really interesting. If whatever I have to do to progress isn't fun, that's something that should be fixed directly. Meanwhile, there is no reason why active progress should be linked to one activity.

 

Best justification for passive training is not having to do something... Well, if it's worth avoiding it needs improvement, why circumvent something that needs to be improved? That's just bad gameplay.

 

I want the gameplay to be so fun that I play aimlessly, and training works on the side as an additional gratification. That desire to progress is the hook most MMOs build upon, and while I find it empty when it is used as bait, that doesn't mean it's not a perfectly satisfying addition to great gameplay. There's a reason we find "RPG" elements in virtually every genre now...

Edited by BahamutKaiser

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter how big and complex the passive skill tree is by the end of it the players will find that one skill thats best to invest passive time in. Think of EVE online. 

To be honest I believe the Active skill tree should be more valuable, Because then you have to actually WORK FOR IT. This is the only thing Im concerned about. Thats one thing that separates "Hardcore" and "casual" players. A Hardcore player puts in time and plays the game to earn what they want. 

It would be rather disappointing to base majority of you strength/skill on how old your character is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't see the problem - it seems like a null equation to me.  The way I see active skill training is I have to spend x time doing y to gain the next skill point.  The way I see passive skill training is I have to spend z time to get the next skill point, but during that time I can do whatever I want, crafting, pvping, or trying to stop my spawn try and vocally murder each other in the living room.

 

Whether I spend x time or z time I'm still spending time.  

 

The difference is that the passive option gives me more flexibility about what else I'm doing during that time, and I'm all about flexibility.  If I spend it crafting I get the added benefit of gear to sell.  If I spend it pvping I have the added benefit of whatever rewards I get from that.  If I spend it parenting then I have the added benefit of not going to jail for child neglect.

 

No. As I mentioned, time is easy. It is automatic.

 

There is no difficulty or effort in time.

 

However, time + effort, even if each individual task is easy, is actually difficult. Perhaps it's just hard to convey to people why this is the case and why it's important if you haven't played Runescape. It is one of the few MMORPGs to have done skilling this way, and I miss it to an indescribable level. It made people who put in real dedication to their craft into absolute legends. You simply cannot achieve this in any other MMORPG now. 

 

Everyone's incredible, so no one is. 

 

I think people come into MMORPGs with the wrong mindset. The mindset that they are entitled to reach the maximum level. But I hate that attitude. Again, I've put in thousands of hours into Runescape and I've only mastered one skill. That is invigorating. The mountain is always higher to climb. 

Edited by unknownxv

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.

- Nietzsche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Everyone's incredible, so no one is. 

 

 

The problem with MMORPGs summed up in six words.

 

If Crowfall gets away from this and makes character progression about problem-solving for different tasks and exploring the game instead of grinding for levels and following a build-guide for stat points and gear, it will be the first MMO to be released in a long time that encourages those sorts of things.

 

That alone makes it worth the money, in my opinion.


"Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

"Be quiet!"

"Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if majority of the skill gain is from passive training I see it becoming a sort of non-issue in a way. Whether or not I get my skills from grinding 100's of hours into the game, or while I am at work seems trivial in the concept of it. If we look at the information we have, Bahamat brings up an excellent point with the maxed centaur only being 50% better than a brand new one at most. The difference has to be made up somewhere, which is where the crafting system comes in.

 

The guy who plays 100's of hours is by default going to have access to more materials than the guy who plays a few hours a few days a week. There is no way around that, nor should their be. As such the people who play more will have a greater chance at the rare crafting drops, it's just going to be the case. This gives the people who play more a definitive advantage over those who play less while at the same time allowing for new players and those with less the ability to come in on a somewhat level playing field against established players.

 

I'm not saying a brand new player can come in and destroy established players, but if the field is primarily even with a slight slope towards the long term players than it means a new player with enough skill could beat an established player. If I can only ever be one or two orders of magnitude stronger than other players than individual skill takes much more precedent, which is how it should be. The weakest part of most MMO's for me is the endless grind to level up, which is time I could be spending doing something I actually enjoy in the game. The Skinner box is not fun, it's just filler.

 

If arts & crafts wants to minimize the amount of time in game I have to spend grinding skills so that every time I come into the game I can focus on actually playing, I have no problems with that. As long as the system is implemented in a way that it takes into account both types of players it can really be seen as a sort of happy medium. Because frankly, when I step into Crowfall I want to be out in the world fighting other players or securing objectives for my guild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Everyone's incredible, so no one is. 

 

 

Except that's not the case.  Because those who have more skill are going to get more kills and hence more resources and better gear.  They will also get renown and at the end of the day that's the currency that really matters.  So it's going to come down to who's the better player rather than who has the least IRL committments and can sink the most time for active play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being more flexible is convenient, convenient isn't really interesting. If whatever I have to do to progress isn't fun, that's something that should be fixed directly. Meanwhile, there is no reason why active progress should be linked to one activity.

 

Best justification for passive training is not having to do something... Well, if it's worth avoiding it needs improvement, why circumvent something that needs to be improved? That's just bad gameplay.

 

I want the gameplay to be so fun that I play aimlessly, and training works on the side as an additional gratification. That desire to progress is the hook most MMOs build upon, and while I find it empty when it is used as bait, that doesn't mean it's not a perfectly satisfying addition to great gameplay. There's a reason we find "RPG" elements in virtually every genre now...

 

To turn your argument on its head, if the gameplay is so fun that you play aimlessly then whether you are skilling up or not is irrelevant.  So why does it matter if that skill up is tied to a timer, or a counter (how many times you have done x).  Everyone finds different things fun so they're taking that out of the equation.

 

Also as I mentioned in my previous post that way the true differentiation becomes skill.  IMO being hardcore isn't the ability to spend endless hours in front of a screen, it's the ability to take down anyone and everyone when you are there.  Obviously I'm going to argue from this standpoint because I have a family so my playtime is limited.  But why should that preclude me from being the best if I have the skill to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have limited play time as well, but I feel the dilemma of having enough time to play vs competitiveness is more a game balance and progression depth thing. A lot of these subjects indirectly affect each other, but their not the thing discussed isn't the direct cause of the issue, when I see a perceived problem and see it tied to something else indirectly, my initial reaction is why is changing this the right solution instead of fixing the problem directly.

 

I answered the question before, the reason training method matters if your having aimless fun is simply that it's slight more fun. Ultimately, it's not a deal breaker either way unless the progress speed is throttled to intentionally prolong the experience, as long as the pace of progression is satisfying, it's okay. The plain issue is that, the training itself ceases to be satisfying if your just waiting, the agency is gone where you can't enjoy working toward your goal, your simply choosing goals and than filling your time with unrelated activities while it finishes.

 

A complete combination of both where both training methods can be pursued without relying on one or the other would be idea, that way players can choose the way they want to pursue the game. The problem lies in requiring the player to rely primarily on waiting to progress, how long your gonna be waiting for progress to finish, and the fact that being able to progress with alternates is directly controlled by money spent.

 

I'm of the firm belief that every facet of a game needs to be a joy, no part should be throttled or restrained to get more money out of a player, it should be so fun, money just falls out of your pocket without hassle. 

 

How well it is applied is purely speculation, I have confidence in ACE primarily because their not publisher driven and hopefully they craft their game with strong ethical quality, but best case scenario, I feel passive training reduces the incentive to play.


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll weigh on this topic a bit with what we are thinking.
 

Skill systems that are usage based tend to lead to macro botting. In UO I'd always setup a machine to cast Kal Vas Xen An Flam all night long. In AC same thing, cast spells in the mana pool for weeks. EQ was much more limited, jump into a pool, press numlock and go away for hours, same result. I'm sure everyone could quote their own examples all night long. Everyone is worried about the new player, imagine telling a new player that before they can go play the game they need to AFK macro their character for a few days, then they can see what the game is like! As Todd likes to say "laaaaame!"
The problem with macro botting in a competitive environment is everyone has to do it, or you fall behind.  It also becomes a straw man to point a finger at why you lost a fight.

 

How do we plan to avoid this? Limited gains on usage, lets say the first 10-20% of a skill can be gained this way. For you non EVE players the beginning of a new character is pretty drab and doesn't feel very good. We hope that the limited gains spice it up a bit in the beginning.

You may have noticed in our Centaur Polearm example the skill potential went from 1-175 opposed to EVE's discrete ranks of 1-5. We wanted to do this so you could feel gains happening all the time and not 1 rank point every 30 days. I can also say the amount of time to train from 150-175 may be crazy extreme for very little statistical gain, that time may be better spent getting a bunch of other skills from 80-100.

 

For crafting we might do an inverse and put the usage gains at the end of the spectrum requiring additives that are more difficult to get. However the bulk of their training will also be passive, nothing is worse to a player economy than thousands of pieces of extra equipment made for the purpose of skilling up.

There is a plethora of comments about "how will new players survive" because their skill values are so low. I would be more concerned about them not knowing how to block, or dash, or which powers do what. Numerical superiority may not save you when you go against a counter class who has figured out how to use all the tools available to that character.  I have always admired how in EVE the new players who fly the smaller ships still have value in fleet battles webbing and jamming the bigger ships.  I would like to think Crowfall would have roles like that as well, digging under castles, placing sapper charges, firing trebuchets, etc.

 

Passive training lets us all progress when we are sleeping, working, at school, etc. It's great knowing your characters are advancing when you aren't able to be online 24/7.

 
 


Thomas Blair
ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.
Follow us on Twitter 
@CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Should have looked at that new post before replying, seems like the dev's beat us to further discussion on the sytsem. Thanks for the clarification on it.

 

@Bahamut:

Yeah, I'd agree if it gets to the point where players can't play the game because LOL have to wait on the skill to go up it would be silly. So far none of the info we have had on crowfall has suggested it will be like that, but I understand why both systems need to be in. The issue you run into becomes how do you make it so that active training is fair and doesn't just turn into a player using a script afk. If all that matters is doing the skill then it turns into an afk using a script (corner swimmers in darkfall) if it is purely off of pve/pvp kills than people will just afk in farm groups to get to the cursory pvp level (ala shadowbane). The most effective mechanic based answer to both behaviors of people just taking up server space without playing is the passive training.

 

I don't think passive training should be the only way to progress at the expense of active training, I just can't think of a real way to make active training very effective outside of directly hinging it to PvP while still addressing the two former issues. Sure players can be ganked in both situations, but chances are if you are using either that anything that could be looted from you is already removed.

 

As long as players can drop in and play the game without having to wait on a timer it should be fine, but it does remove some of the cool things like unlocking a new move after a long fight. Ideally abilities would be emergent from use and skills would be how well you can use said abilities, however something like that would be a bit tricky to code when not tied to traditional level concepts. For example if I use a longsword against more than one enemy, eventually I will gain the ability to strike more than one opponent with an ability. Conversely if I use a longsword and primarily duel other players I would develop abilities to help me in duels, quick thrusts etc. I'm not expecting that level of emergent gameplay tailored to how you play the game with abilities, but outside of that it becomes if you have this level and this skill with a sword than you get access to X, Y, & Z abilities.

 

If I were to have to design around that, I'd probably just remove the level system entirely (it's basically arbitrary anyways) and just tie advancement through usage of weapons/skills coupled with conditioning for endurance, strength, etc. You then tie the skills to things like improving your strength, stamina, wisdom, etc. while you gain new abilities by using things out in the game. For example you would probably start out terrible at duel wielding but over time with enough actual use (not just swings but swings that actually hit something) you would become more proficient at it while at the same time gaining abilities with it.

 

I don't think they are going to go with a system like that, because it would be a nightmare to code the emergent behavior in a way that's not just I've hit something x times or just a randomization of the x.

Edited by RemlapVII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll weigh on this topic a bit with what we are thinking.

 

Skill systems that are usage based tend to lead to macro botting. In UO I'd always setup a machine to cast Kal Vas Xen An Flam all night long. In AC same thing, cast spells in the mana pool for weeks. EQ was much more limited, jump into a pool, press numlock and go away for hours, same result. I'm sure everyone could quote their own examples all night long. Everyone is worried about the new player, imagine telling a new player that before they can go play the game they need to AFK macro their character for a few days, then they can see what the game is like! As Todd likes to say "laaaaame!"

The problem with macro botting in a competitive environment is everyone has to do it, or you fall behind.  It also becomes a straw man to point a finger at why you lost a fight.

 

How do we plan to avoid this? Limited gains on usage, lets say the first 10-20% of a skill can be gained this way. For you non EVE players the beginning of a new character is pretty drab and doesn't feel very good. We hope that the limited gains spice it up a bit in the beginning.

 

You may have noticed in our Centaur Polearm example the skill potential went from 1-175 opposed to EVE's discrete ranks of 1-5. We wanted to do this so you could feel gains happening all the time and not 1 rank point every 30 days. I can also say the amount of time to train from 150-175 may be crazy extreme for very little statistical gain, that time may be better spent getting a bunch of other skills from 80-100.

 

For crafting we might do an inverse and put the usage gains at the end of the spectrum requiring additives that are more difficult to get. However the bulk of their training will also be passive, nothing is worse to a player economy than thousands of pieces of extra equipment made for the purpose of skilling up.

 

There is a plethora of comments about "how will new players survive" because their skill values are so low. I would be more concerned about them not knowing how to block, or dash, or which powers do what. Numerical superiority may not save you when you go against a counter class who has figured out how to use all the tools available to that character.  I have always admired how in EVE the new players who fly the smaller ships still have value in fleet battles webbing and jamming the bigger ships.  I would like to think Crowfall would have roles like that as well, digging under castles, placing sapper charges, firing trebuchets, etc.

 

Passive training lets us all progress when we are sleeping, working, at school, etc. It's great knowing your characters are advancing when you aren't able to be online 24/7.

 

 

 

I have a question about botting feasibility in a game with intelligent combat... If you could macro and bot your way to a higher level, and if it was necessary in order to advance, then that would be a realistic scenario. Question is whether you allow it?

 

The combat we saw in the demo might have been simple enough to macro... but should it be? should you be able to do anything remotely like that?

 

I've been playing more action based games lately, and even in some of the easier ones, if you have to distinguish multiple targets, position properly, and look for ques to use your attacks properly, a bot is going to be fairly obsolete. If the gameplay is intelligent enough, obstacles can be presented to ensure you will die if your attempting to use something with poor logic to automate your progress, so, that's only a problem if you allow it to be.

 

Beyond that, player power doesn't have to scale incredibly with growth. Having learned from the original Guild Wars, where leveling was pretty much thrown away at the beginning and customization was king, the limit in actual progression can greatly limit the impact of new vs old. It could take 2 years to reach maximum completion, but only allow you to become twice as powerful, so a brand new player can still hit and damage you, and while not be able to beat you practically, at least be able to contribute to a fight in some capacity.

 

Going back to my earlier statement, when I see an indirect solution to a problem, I immediately go back to the original problem and ask why is something related being addressed to solve the problem instead of addressing the problem directly.

 

Early level content should be filled with interesting gameplay and challenges to both teach and entertain the player, getting to a level of competent power shouldn't be an issue if the content presented to the player at that level is appropriate as well as indicative of how the game should be played later.

 

I really don't think classic MMOs are a good indication of perceived problems, but I don't want to harp on it any further so it's in your hands...

Edited by BahamutKaiser

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that's not the case.  Because those who have more skill are going to get more kills and hence more resources and better gear.  They will also get renown and at the end of the day that's the currency that really matters.  So it's going to come down to who's the better player rather than who has the least IRL committments and can sink the most time for active play.

 

If all I wanted was a video game to stand out in skill alone, I would play Chivalry Medieval warfare and smite and never look for a good MMORPG. But I want more. I want to be able to stand out in skill, absolutely, but I want the dynamic variety created by a in-game character skill system that is damn tough to master. I don't want to be on an even playing field as everyone else. It's so incredibly dull, but most importantly you cannot stand out in your character. 

 

What is more exciting than facing a player in the world who has a superior stat line than you (which I must reiterate would offer a benefit but it would be incredibly minor compared to traditional themepark mmos) but still prevailing? Or roaming the land with your friends and encountering another player who attacks you and, tested through battle, is both superior in real life skill and in-game skill, allowing him to essentially be the toughest of boss fights. 

 

If you want everyone to be even, fine. Just go with that. Don't even have skill progression. If it is to be completely effortless, I really don't understand why it would even exist. What's the point?

 

All that matters then is PvP and the conquest. Which makes the game not an MMORPG, but a large arena. This is what happened in Darkfall (people botted their levels and there was no anti-botting technology). Darkfall had more issues, like no sand at all in the box, it really was just a glorified arena. Crowfall has a more robust city building system and destruction system which is great, but it's just not quite enough for me.

 

I really want to be a character in another universe, I want this character to be in an environment where the more effort and time spent, the more my character improves. I want that sense of progression not just in personal skill. 

 

It is more important than ever given that the only persistence in Crowfall will be in your character. If that progression is meaningless, it really isn't an MMORPG. 

 

You will fade away, no more than a cog in a giant machine, to method to truly stand out, just a number and a statistic in some video game arena war. 

 

 

I'll weigh on this topic a bit with what we are thinking.

 

Skill systems that are usage based tend to lead to macro botting. In UO I'd always setup a machine to cast Kal Vas Xen An Flam all night long. In AC same thing, cast spells in the mana pool for weeks. EQ was much more limited, jump into a pool, press numlock and go away for hours, same result. I'm sure everyone could quote their own examples all night long. Everyone is worried about the new player, imagine telling a new player that before they can go play the game they need to AFK macro their character for a few days, then they can see what the game is like! As Todd likes to say "laaaaame!"

The problem with macro botting in a competitive environment is everyone has to do it, or you fall behind.  It also becomes a straw man to point a finger at why you lost a fight.

 

How do we plan to avoid this? Limited gains on usage, lets say the first 10-20% of a skill can be gained this way. For you non EVE players the beginning of a new character is pretty drab and doesn't feel very good. We hope that the limited gains spice it up a bit in the beginning.

 

You may have noticed in our Centaur Polearm example the skill potential went from 1-175 opposed to EVE's discrete ranks of 1-5. We wanted to do this so you could feel gains happening all the time and not 1 rank point every 30 days. I can also say the amount of time to train from 150-175 may be crazy extreme for very little statistical gain, that time may be better spent getting a bunch of other skills from 80-100.

 

For crafting we might do an inverse and put the usage gains at the end of the spectrum requiring additives that are more difficult to get. However the bulk of their training will also be passive, nothing is worse to a player economy than thousands of pieces of extra equipment made for the purpose of skilling up.

 

There is a plethora of comments about "how will new players survive" because their skill values are so low. I would be more concerned about them not knowing how to block, or dash, or which powers do what. Numerical superiority may not save you when you go against a counter class who has figured out how to use all the tools available to that character.  I have always admired how in EVE the new players who fly the smaller ships still have value in fleet battles webbing and jamming the bigger ships.  I would like to think Crowfall would have roles like that as well, digging under castles, placing sapper charges, firing trebuchets, etc.

 

Passive training lets us all progress when we are sleeping, working, at school, etc. It's great knowing your characters are advancing when you aren't able to be online 24/7.

 

 

 

Are you telling me there is no technological method to prevent people from macroing? Runescape managed to do it on their current old school servers. Virtually no bots anymore. If your reasoning is primarily technical, I implore you to challenge it because it will lead to, in my opinion, a far more meaty and long-term experience. If the primary reason is design based, I have to question how this is a proper way to address botting. 

 

The primary issue with botting is earning free experience for no effort. So instead of people doing that, you code botting in and make it official. In fact, you make it even easier, since you don't even have to be present within the world or use materials. Your solution to botting is to make a superior version of it for everyone to use all the time...? 

 

As for crafting, I agree that having a monumental quantity of weak crafted items clogging up banks is an uninspired sight, but a simple fix to this is to allow one to salvage gear, even crafted gear. For less materials than originally used of course, but this removes the issue of item clog. People will want to destroy inferior gear for the materials to make more, to improve their crafting level. 

 

I guess I am in the minority here unfortunately, but I do not feel happy knowing that my character is improving without any input from me. On the contrary, I feel robbed and cheated. 

Edited by unknownxv

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.

- Nietzsche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simplest thing to do would be to skew the balance the other way; Active training is the primary method skills are learned, while passive supplements this.


Hardcore gamer & tabletop enthusiast. Enjoys roleplaying, pretending to be stupid, and one-sided fun.

Goodposting 101: How to Keep the Forums Clean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simplest thing to do would be to skew the balance the other way; Active training is the primary method skills are learned, while passive supplements this.

 

Supplemental is fine, the concern is that they initial intend to have active training only to initiate the growth, and passive only to complete it...


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supplemental is fine, the concern is that they initial intend to have active training only to initiate the growth, and passive only to complete it...

So you have to swing your sword a few times before you start magically learning to get better. Seems reasonable, otherwise you'd just be getting something for nothing. Well, no, but you'd be getting better at everything, regardless of actual use.

 

And passive to complete it just harkens back to the OP's Runescape example, where, after a certain point, it's no longer feasible to sink the time in to train it up. You could take five skills from 80 to 100 in the time it takes you to grind Sword from 149 to 150, for example.

 

What if the rates are different? Say, Active is logarithmic, starts off fast and slows down at the end, while passive is linear, always #N (or N%) XP per time. So as a skill increases towards the cap, it takes more and more grind to upgrade so you let passive take over and start grinding up Running or something.

 

Come to think of it, that's probably how they're doing it.

Edited by Psyentific

Hardcore gamer & tabletop enthusiast. Enjoys roleplaying, pretending to be stupid, and one-sided fun.

Goodposting 101: How to Keep the Forums Clean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The primary issue with botting is earning free experience for no effort. So instead of people doing that, you code botting in and make it official. In fact, you make it even easier, since you don't even have to be present within the world or use materials. Your solution to botting is to make a superior version of it for everyone to use all the time...? 

 

 

I disagree. The primary issue with botting is belittling others efforts by reaping experience, which is supposed to be gained, by free. That is kind of cheating.

 

You don't imply, that first person shooters implement botting for letting everyone being equal at start, or giving out maxed skills, by not implementing skills at all, right? It all depends on game rules, or mechanics, if you wish.

 

Passive skill training is basically like in Eve Online. And the biggest complaint of new players in Eve, that they have to wait a year before they can be competitive. Which is not true. Yes, your power grows over time from the start. Until you train most/all skills for given ship. Then, you might have slight increase by training last rank, which takes months to train. Then, you work for diversity. Training different type of ships, weapons, systems, etc.

 

I've never seen complaints from Eve players, that passive training is dumb or frustrating.

 

Update: That would be unfair, if they'd give passive training to VIP accounts, and others could only level skills actively. That would be "free experience with no effort" for the chosen. But until rules are equal for everyone, it's a just different mechanic.

Edited by Gremour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...