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

Active skill proficiency hand in hand with passive progression

Active and passive skill progression  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. Which one do you prefer?

    • Active and passive training going hand in hand - You actually need to swing your weapon to know how to max it out
    • Passive progression is independant, multiple characters without playing progress at same pace as active characters.


Recommended Posts

This wasn't a topic in favor of active training, or at least I don't think that's what Navtyr was proposing.

 

What we're suggesting is to limit passive training when the game isn't being played (one way or another).

 

Digging through my old posts:

 

  • We know there's a bit of active training going on (up to 20-30% of the skills, which shouldn't be a lot).. so we could have passive training work ONLY after a character has fulfilled his active training. If that's too harsh (and I don't think it is), passive training could only be nerfed to 25%-35% of its actual pace, until active training is done (better yet, ACE could disable the ability to train primary and secondary skills, and let only the tertiary gain %).
  • Have passive training (PT) slow down when a player has not used any of his skills recently. An example: 24 hours of 'absency', PT goes down to 66%... 48 hours, PT goes to 33%, 72 hours (and more) PT gets down to 10%. Alternative: primary skill doesn't skill up after 24 hours, secondary after 48 hours, and after all that remains is the tertiary.
Edited by Fenris DDevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main reasons the devs want passive training is so that players don't feel like they have to log in every day to keep up with their friends. You're offering a system which punishes behavior the devs explicitly want to support.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main reasons the devs want passive training is so that players don't feel like they have to log in every day to keep up with their friends. You're offering a system which punishes behavior the devs explicitly want to support.

 

What behaviour? Buying 10 accounts and passive train every single character without raising a finger?

 

There are infinite different scenarios between a total passive training system and an active one. I am suggesting to encourage players to log in once in a while in order to normalize their passive training speed.. if that's too much to ask in a highly competitive game where world ends in a couple of months and stuff gets challenged by others everyday I don't know what to think.

Edited by Fenris DDevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things:

 

OP has a pretty severe misunderstanding of what skills are leveled.  You aren't training each individual ability, you are training categories like "Swords," or "Bows."

 

Second, as others have said, this completely undercuts the value of the game.  Part of the benefit of Crowfall is that I'm not grinding to max out every single character just to be able to play against others.

 

Let me be clear the point of this game is not to max out a ton of characters.  This is a game about how well you play, how well you master combat, how effectively you manage diplomacy, politics, and intrigue.  It's not a "max out all my dudes so I have 6 pieces of raid gear."  

 

Skill leveling isn't about mastery, it's about focus.  They aren't making us level up skills in order to hit some proficiency in all fields of combat.  They are making us do it so that we have to focus our characters, so that you first have them as a Swordsman before branching out into archery, or improving their blocking.

 

When you understand that fact, it starts to make a lot more sense.  You don't need to hit max level on skills.  It won't even give you a massive bonus, it'll just give you an edge.  It's far more about how we'll you're actually playing.

 

So if I don't need to hit max level on skills, don't implement some kind of grinding mechanic in order to level them up.  Doing so will only break the mindset, and cause a cognitive dissonance that will absolutely hurt the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i am a bit lost, my interpretation of the system was basically:

 

(scenario)

Skills max at say 50. As i am logged out the skill levels towards 50. Once logged in and using said skill my proficiency in the skill moves towards what ever the level i currently have reached and would not progress past that level without logging out to passively train.

 

This imo is an artificial leveling system in order to get players to have a sense of progression. There are up sides to the system as in even with passively training everything to max level you still have to play to actually get the skill maxed. If you are not proficient with the ability then your damage/buff/debuff from said ability will suffer. The downsides would be some players feeling like they are possibly grinding.

 

There is also information we don't know that skews the issue like how long it takes to max a skills level and proficiency. What issues are there with low proficiency in a skill. 

 

Please correct me if i am wrong in my interpretation of the system, but if the above mentioned is correct it wouldn't benefit multi-account users very well as they would have to log in and play those characters to even make them worth having. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wolfuse, there are a couple of misunderstandings there.

 

* Your character's key skills will max at more like 150-200, depending on your archetype, promotion class, and applied disciples.

* You do not have to log out to passively train, the skill trains up continuously 24x7 once you assign a passive training queue to that skill.

* Active skill use can get a skill up to a competency level (30ish?) but after that point is reached the only way to raise a skill further is by assigning a passive training queue to the skill.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i am a bit lost, my interpretation of the system was basically:

 

(scenario)

Skills max at say 50. As i am logged out the skill levels towards 50. Once logged in and using said skill my proficiency in the skill moves towards what ever the level i currently have reached and would not progress past that level without logging out to passively train.

 

This imo is an artificial leveling system in order to get players to have a sense of progression. There are up sides to the system as in even with passively training everything to max level you still have to play to actually get the skill maxed. If you are not proficient with the ability then your damage/buff/debuff from said ability will suffer. The downsides would be some players feeling like they are possibly grinding.

 

There is also information we don't know that skews the issue like how long it takes to max a skills level and proficiency. What issues are there with low proficiency in a skill. 

 

Please correct me if i am wrong in my interpretation of the system, but if the above mentioned is correct it wouldn't benefit multi-account users very well as they would have to log in and play those characters to even make them worth having. 

 

There's a lot of misunderstanding here.

 

Let's imagine skills max at 100 (easier round number to use).

 

100% of the time, one character (or 3 if you have VIP) is leveling 3 skills up, 1 going fast, 1 going medium speed, and 1 leveling slowly.  Logged in or not, this happens totally passively, and never stops (unless you max the skill, I guess).

 

The rate they've suggested (though not set in stone) appears to be about 100 levels/month for the primary, 50 / month for the secondary, and 33 / month for the tertiary (as they've said that your primary skill will take a month to level to max by their current model).  Some basic math suggests this'll probably be around 3 levels per day, 2, and 1.  Note, these are averages, not constants.  Skill level speed is logarithmic, so you might gain 20 levels in day 1, and then level 99 -> 100 takes the last week.  Still, thinking of these averages can be pretty helpful for understanding the base concept.

 

So to recap, whether or not I'm playing, if my "Sword" skill is in the primary slot, over the course of the day I'll see it level ~3 times.  If I log off for 2 days, I'll come back and the game will say "Swords leveled up 6 times!"  If I'm online and playing, I'll just notice it level up 3 times during the day.  (Again, remember, this is inaccurate due to the logarithmic curve, but you get the idea).

 

 

The active component currently is that some % of those levels can also be achieved by playing.  That's what "Proficiency" means in this case.  Let's assume that "Proficiency" is 20%, or level 20.  This means that if I'm using a sword weapon, every attack will give me a bit of progress towards the next level of Sword, as long as I am under level 20.  So if I want to level a new skill, this means I can kickstart that leveling process by making use of it.

 

 

Finally, about the issues with low skill mastery, they've said that the effects of Proficiency are pretty much the meat and potatoes of a skill level.  If you've hit proficiency, you'll have no real problems using that in combat.  However, anything above that can certainly give you an edge, and can be the deciding factor in a very close match.

Edited by theDoctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh thanks for the clarification. I just don't get how this helps mutli account users though if they aren't actively playing each character.

Edited by wolfuse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it lets us just play and not have to worry about grinding sword lvls so you can do better in the CW's.

I hope you read the part where i say it wouldn't be a chore to do. Fenris got the point with "What we're suggesting is to limit passive training when the game isn't being played (one way or another)."

 

 

Two things:

 

OP has a pretty severe misunderstanding of what skills are leveled.  You aren't training each individual ability, you are training categories like "Swords," or "Bows."

 

 

Let me be clear the point of this game is not to max out a ton of characters.  This is a game about how well you play, how well you master combat, how effectively you manage diplomacy, politics, and intrigue.  

1) Unless i missed something (which by all means please link or quote) or simply misunderstood what was already said, i thought you're training single skills, since if it takes 1 month to max it, then by month 3 you'd have nothing else to train since swords, bows and shields are 100% right?

 

2) Don't get me wrong, i'm all up for player skill vs character skills. The thing is, Todd (or some other dev, quote if i'm wrong) stated as a reply to a question on how easily will a newb compete vs a veteran character wise.

The reply was that he can't 1v1 of course, but a gank of 3 newbs could probably take down a vet. Now let's say that the newbs have a basic understanding so the vet isn't light years ahead tactic wise. And for this example, his gear isn't light years ahead either, since it keeps breaking anyway. So what else does differentiate the vet from the newbs, other than months of passive skill training? ALL FINE SO FAR. But if that guy also has 4 other toons (that he barely even touched) that wreck noobs purely because of the passive time he has ahead of them, then i'm really against passive training that doesn't include any active requirement to reach full potential. I'M NOT SAYING LET'S TURN IT INTO GRINDING! But i'm not up for 'let's not login for half a year and return with a super buff character' times XY amount of character / money he has. 

 

Edit: Thanks for everyone's input on this. By no means this thread is meant as another 'omg change it the way i want' and primal i'm sorry about your loss of goats. It's purpose is purely to get better understanding of what to expect of the skill progression in the future and to see what the majority digs or doesn't. 

Edited by Navtyr

Welcome the hunger

Todd is Love, Todd is Life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to play a character at a competitive level, rest assured that you won't get there just by idling your character to the skill cap while you play LoL every night.

<3 deserves a double post

Edited by Navtyr

Welcome the hunger

Todd is Love, Todd is Life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you read the part where i say it wouldn't be a chore to do. Fenris got the point with "What we're suggesting is to limit passive training when the game isn't being played (one way or another)."

 

 
 

1) Unless i missed something (which by all means please link or quote) or simply misunderstood what was already said, i thought you're training single skills, since if it takes 1 month to max it, then by month 3 you'd have nothing else to train since swords, bows and shields are 100% right?

 

2) Don't get me wrong, i'm all up for player skill vs character skills. The thing is, Todd (or some other dev, quote if i'm wrong) stated as a reply to a question on how easily will a newb compete vs a veteran character wise.

The reply was that he can't 1v1 of course, but a gank of 3 newbs could probably take down a vet. Now let's say that the newbs have a basic understanding so the vet isn't light years ahead tactic wise. And for this example, his gear isn't light years ahead either, since it keeps breaking anyway. So what else does differentiate the vet from the newbs, other than months of passive skill training? ALL FINE SO FAR. But if that guy also has 4 other toons (that he barely even touched) that wreck noobs purely because of the passive time he has ahead of them, then i'm really against passive training that doesn't include any active requirement to reach full potential. I'M NOT SAYING LET'S TURN IT INTO GRINDING! But i'm not up for 'let's not login for half a year and return with a super buff character' times XY amount of character / money he has. 

 

Edit: Thanks for everyone's input on this. By no means this thread is meant as another 'omg change it the way i want' and primal i'm sorry about your loss of goats. It's purpose is purely to get better understanding of what to expect of the skill progression in the future and to see what the majority digs or doesn't. 

You have to actively change out what skills get lvled its not automatic. So no you can't just put a character on the shelf and expect a year later to have max on everything. Besides if you're not actively playing that character whats the difference, you likely won't have disc runes to use and won't have gameplay experience so not like you'll have some kind of OP monster toon because of passive training. The skill training is just one part of the whole system of building a character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Unless i missed something (which by all means please link or quote) or simply misunderstood what was already said, i thought you're training single skills, since if it takes 1 month to max it, then by month 3 you'd have nothing else to train since swords, bows and shields are 100% right?

2) Don't get me wrong, i'm all up for player skill vs character skills. The thing is, Todd (or some other dev, quote if i'm wrong) stated as a reply to a question on how easily will a newb compete vs a veteran character wise.

The reply was that he can't 1v1 of course, but a gank of 3 newbs could probably take down a vet. Now let's say that the newbs have a basic understanding so the vet isn't light years ahead tactic wise. And for this example, his gear isn't light years ahead either, since it keeps breaking anyway. So what else does differentiate the vet from the newbs, other than months of passive skill training? ALL FINE SO FAR. But if that guy also has 4 other toons (that he barely even touched) that wreck noobs purely because of the passive time he has ahead of them, then i'm really against passive training that doesn't include any active requirement to reach full potential. I'M NOT SAYING LET'S TURN IT INTO GRINDING! But i'm not up for 'let's not login for half a year and return with a super buff character' times XY amount of character / money he has. 

 

 

8. IS THERE A LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF SKILL A PLAYER CAN GAIN IN A SPECIFIC SKILL?

Yes. The Archetype of each character sets an initial maximum amount for each starting skill. For example, the Legionnaire can raise his Polearm skill to 100.

Taking an Advantage at character create such as “Military Training” can raise this max to 110.

If that Legionnaire promotes to Centurion, it raises the skill max by an additional 40 points (to a total of 150).

Finally taking the “Executioner” Discipline will raise the max by another +25, giving him 175 maximum Polearm skill.

The character can now passively train to 175 skill in Polearm.

 

This is from the faq.

 

Polearms sounds a lot more like a category than an individual skill to me.

 

Yes, you'll probably run out of things to max eventually.  That's ok.  As I said before, leveling is not the point of this game.  (Of course, it's not nearly as quickly as you seem to imply...there'd be skills for each weapon type, skills for acrobatics/styles such as dual wielding, probably skills for each crafting type and magic type).

 

 

For your #2, you say "But i'm not up for 'let's not login for half a year and return with a super buff character' times XY amount of character / money he has. " which I think is the major misconception.  Your characters don't get "super buff" from leveling.  They just get up-to-par.

 

Note this system is not one where you create a character, log in a year later, and have a badass character.  It's one where you can create a character, log in a year later, and realize that character is not useless just because you were busy with a different character.  (Ignore the fact that you'd have to log on semi-regularly just to change which skills are leveling).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your #2, you say "But i'm not up for 'let's not login for half a year and return with a super buff character' times XY amount of character / money he has. " which I think is the major misconception.  Your characters don't get "super buff" from leveling.  They just get up-to-par.

 

Note this system is not one where you create a character, log in a year later, and have a badass character.  It's one where you can create a character, log in a year later, and realize that character is not useless just because you were busy with a different character.  (Ignore the fact that you'd have to log on semi-regularly just to change which skills are leveling).

A nice reply, thanks.

I may have overblown the 'super buff' part, but up-to-par still applies the same. Just to make it simple:

 

A) After 3 months of focusing on my main, i decide 'hey, i wanna play something else now'. I make a Stalker. He is not up to par with 3 month old characters.

B ) I plan in advance in case i even slightly feel like i'd like to play an alt in near future. I buy another account for the purpose of constant VIP instead of paying monthly only to passive train one more character. I set his skills to train and i carry on for my next 3 months until case A) happens. He is up to par with my main character (skill wise, not discipline promotion rune stuff wise).

As far as i know, if the skill gets maxed, it auto switches on the next available skill to train, so the 'semi-regularly' logins you wrote more lean towards 'rarely'.

 

Should i be getting a character that's up-to-par with the veterans, if the new player doesn't? Something just feels off. I don't wanna call it 'pay to be up to par with alts' since that will trigger hell and sheen combined, but idk man. I'd be good to know how much impact will passives actually have in the end, but we're way too far from there atm.

 

you likely won't have disc runes to use and won't have gameplay experience so not like you'll have some kind of OP monster toon because of passive training.

I'm getting a feeling you didn't really read the whole post. I stated that player skill and disciplines are a valid argument, but my post was about the passive/active training. Who knows how much effect it will have in the end, since it's all subject to change though.

Edited by Navtyr

Welcome the hunger

Todd is Love, Todd is Life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should i be getting a character that's up-to-par with the veterans, if the new player doesn't? Something just feels off. I don't wanna call it 'pay to be up to par with alts' since that will trigger hell and sheen combined, but idk man. I'd be good to know how much impact will passives actually have in the end, but we're way too far from there atm.

 

I would say the answer is yes, because you are a veteran.  That's the point I'm trying to illustrate with my first post.

 

Crowfall isn't a game about toons and mains and alts and leveling.  It's a game about what you the player can do with the tools provided for you.

 

Over time, you'll acquire more tools.  That's the promise they give you.  You don't have to use all the tools all the time in order for them to keep giving you tools.

 

 

Here's another counterpoint to consider:

Let me lay out a few premises that ACE have promised (and let's assume they succeed in these goals, otherwise if we don't believe in ACE there are bigger issues):

  • Each player is going to bring 1 character into a campaign
  • Each player is going to really care about the rewards of winning a campaign
  • As player's EK's and stuff get bigger, they will need even more resources

If you accept all three of these things as ACE has suggested them, then how the heck am I ever going to start playing an unleveled alt?  I won't be able to afford to commit 3-6 months to a new campaign with a weaker character when my guild is relying on me.

 

The only way I'll ever get to play new characters is if I can log on and have them somewhat close to the power of my current one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in a couple of weeks I'll be as good at LoL as the guys with 6 figure incomes on the pro teams? Cause that's a game that uses a keyboard and mouse too.

 

Awesome. Brb, quitting my job.

You're arguing extremes, I'll forgive you this once.

 

 


#CrowFallBata


~Sweet Sensations~


puppy punch Count: 28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that it's pointless. There is no reason to penalize people who don't have all the time in the world to play the game. In games where progression is the whole point, that's one thing. In any other kind of game, it's silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Navtyr, in regards to leveling skills, it does not auto switch to the next skill. The only thing it automatically does, is if your primary training finishes the secondary becomes the primary and the tertiary becomes the secondary while the tertiary now sits empty.

 

Lets say you want to be a tanky knight, k?

 

You need to train swords, shields, warmth (for winter), crafting armor (you want to be a tank right? part of that is gonna be keeping yourself in at least passing armor if the main guild crafter isn't around), stamina, perception (seeing stealth), Toughness (reducing critical chances), etc, etc, etc...

 

You aren't going to be some badass without a LOT of time shifting skills around whenever possible. It also is only going to grant you an edge over others that don't have it. Your personal skill in combat mechanics and your tactics in positioning are still going to matter more than the training after basic profeciency. That's the whole premise of Crowfall. The reason a veteran should mop the floor with a few newbies is because they better understand the positioning and interplay between the skills than the newbie does.


"Lawful Good does not always mean Lawful Nice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is every pay to play MMO out there a failure of design?

 

Pay to progress faster is an extremely common option in no small number of MMOs these days. I really don't see where this is worse, especially since we're talking alts, exclusively. Alts aren't really progression in the direct sense.

 

I don't really understand where you're coming from.

 

So you don't understand how having two options is better than having one? Like,being able to be a good warrior and mage instead of only being a good archer. K


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

On the other hand, sucking with two classes is not as good as mastering one.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

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...