Idea: study points

[Maxstate]

Well currently the plan is to have XP earned be reset every time you leave a server. However to make it more fair to long-term players, I thought of an idea to let them keep some kind of benefit from having experience 'on the field'.

Study points would be points that you'd earn every so many experience points. Study points could be invested into skills or skill categories, making these skills or skill categories level by a percentage proportionate to the number of study points you invest in it faster than its default rate.

Example:
Need 220 headshots for pistol category upgrade:
Add 2 study points to pistol category;
Need only 170 headshots for the same effect now.

Yes, no? Additions, edits?

[Revolves]

Well currently the plan is to have XP earned be reset every time you leave a server.


I think the server should store the XP for an hour after the player left for the IP he's on - it could also be done from the time the player left until the next map is swapped. This way a bad internet provider (yes DD) isn't going to be able to fuck you over that much - and ragequiting isn't going to be that terrible, if you decide to rejoin shortly thereafter.

There should also be a way to reset xp, for those masochists, like max, that like the idea of having a bad start.


However to make it more fair to long-term players, I thought of an idea to let them keep some kind of benefit from having experience 'on the field'.

Study points would be points that you'd earn every so many experience points. Study points could be invested into skills or skill categories, making these skills or skill categories level by a percentage proportionate to the number of study points you invest in it faster than its default rate.


I'm going to do this argument american bulletin board style so that you people will not need to decipher my horrible grammar;

- (Premise for you nerds) 1: Long term players tend to be more skilled, and vice versa.

(This, I think, is the weakest premise of them all - but over a large scale over many games I'm pretty sure it will be noticeable)

- 2: Skilled players are better than newbies, and in a system that rewards player skill with new upgrades (e.g. interference xp/money/upgrades), they're going to get these rewards quicker.

- 3, from 1: More skilled players will tend to have more study points.

- 4: The study-point system makes getting these upgrades even quicker.

- Conclusion from 2 and 4: The skilled players will be getting the upgrades quicker based on two phenomena ; their skill, and the study points.


Now while max is going to say "there's no accounting for skill", I call BS. The study point system just makes skilled players have an even larger advantage over the newbies - not just based on their skill, but also based on how much the game puts them into an advantage. Skilled players are going to need to put less work in - work that they are already more skilled at than newbies (e.g. shooting people in the head) - than newbies would need to get the same weapon.

Still, I agree on the premise that this whole idea is based on; the idea that long term players should have something to show for their long-term work/play time. However, it should not give them an advantage that is too substantial - also, having a system which gives no advantage at all - other than a token sense of progression - or even a disadvantage, would also be quite stupid.

Thus, two counter proposals;

1. Either make the advantage that study points give very small, and have a limited amount of study points that can be spent.

2. A different system, for example like in TF2 - where if you play enough you'll unlock "sidegrades" for the weapons/upgrades that are in game. These unlocks will have a disadvantage and advantage attached to them, however this is merely an example.

[Maxstate]

But there is literally no accounting for skill. Instead of giving everyone the same starting point and rewarding players based on the time and effort they invest in the game, you're arguing that a player's skill, simply because it puts them at a natural advantage to someone else, is a bad thing and should be controlled and/or managed.

Not only is it impossible to do but it's unfair. Even in the progressive tax systems that we hold dear, someone that earns more money will always feel his wallet to be thicker than his neighbors' no matter the tax. In a complex system such as an economy, the argument from incentive has been reduced to ridicule; however, in a simpler environment where there is no human element and no economical element, the concept of incentive is very important. What drives MMORPG players to even play the game? That's an interesting question: I think it is the promise of a better experience, a more in-depth and enjoyable game, as you progress. The word 'progress' is vital here. The incentive is progress. I'm trying to strike a balance between the MMORPG system where your skill is always kept with you no matter what, and those that invest the most time into a game are those that are automatically better at it, seeing as how the game is designed like this, and between the system like in the original enemy territory, where every time you have to start over completely.

Let me first define two things: INHERENT skill is the skill that you gain personally from your own empirical existence. It is that which has a specific niveau when a player starts playing the game and grows in correlation with time spent but has absolutely no tie to game skills or skill categories. PERCEIVED skill is the skill that others think you have and is a compound of INHERENT skill together with the skills you have bought or invested time into in the game. One of these can be managed, steered, planned by us. The other cannot. These terms as explained above are important to KEEP apart when discussing how and what we can - or should manage.

Your entire argument:

- 1: Long term players tend to be more skilled, and vice versa.

- 2: Skilled players are better than newbies, and in a system that rewards player skill with new upgrades (e.g. interference xp/money/upgrades), they're going to get these rewards quicker.

- 3, from 1: More skilled players will tend to have more study points.

- 4: The study-point system makes getting these upgrades even quicker.

- Conclusion from 2 and 4: The skilled players will be getting the upgrades quicker based on two phenomena ; their skill, and the study points.

Is not just grammatically flawed, logically flawed and an academic example of sophistry, it also goes against the grain of anything would be deemed fair in a game. You're conflating two types of players:
-players who play the game a lot and thus get 'better at it' (PERCEIVED AND INHERENT);
-players who are naturally good at the game because of some random reason or because of the aforementioned reason (PERCEIVED AND INHERENT).

You then present some circular reasoning: "skilled players are better than newbies." This in and of itself are is not really an issue, but you use sophistry to justify the following argument (paraphrased):

"Because skilled players will be rewarded according to their ability, they will get study points quicker and thus be better than their noob counterparts."

This is the academic example of sophistry I was talking about. You are saying: "better players will be better players because they're better players and will thus get better results from the game that they are better players at." Your argument does not follow from your premise or conclusion. There is no way that the team will be able to account for skill - there is no way to account for (INHERENT) skill, period.

There is however a choice you can make. Do you commit yourself to unrestrained social darwinism and accept the fact that those whose time is plenty bears more fruit; or do you accept that this is an unfair system and should see some regulation to keep the long-term elites from overcoming the new players every single time?

If the latter, then first I need you to you accept a hypothesis of mine: 'skill is time spent.' If you do, and it's extremely hard not to, then from this can only lead the first choice: that available time to play the game is directly correlated to the (PERCEIVED) skill of the player. Whether or not it affects the INHERENT skill does not matter - this is something you cannot plan on. You cannot make a scientific estimation of the player's inherent skill, or the rise in it, or whatever. Since we are also dealing with the second choice, we have said to make experience points as gained in-game, which are the only thing that we have direct control over, the only things that are unnatural to the player themself, be reset at the beginning of every new server game.

This way - and this is the entire argument - the INHERENT skill is left untouched, as it should be, but the PERCEIVED skill reset.

A role playing game, at least in my opinion - and that's I think where we differ at least - a player should not only see improvement in their INHERENT skill. This is what action and adventure games are about. The player should also see the subjective growth of their character through the retainment of at least a part of their PERCEIVED skill.

Final words: better players will be better players regardless of whether their subjective PERCEIVED skills are reset or not. They will be better - and as contrasted to a realistic, economical and societal scenario - through none which means other than their own! They should not be pampered but they should also not be punished.

As all players, noobs or elites, will gain inherent and perceived skill and study points at a rate directly proportionate to the old formula (skill = time) we should assume that this is the most fair system - a noob is simply a player who is not yet an elite, if we follow the formula. From this I can only conclude that while we are trying to protect noobs, the only way to do this would be through limiting a player's inherent skill, and this I believe, again as opposed to a realistic economical model or scenario, is not possible in the constraints of our simplistic time-driven gameworld.

-signed, a sperglord

[Revolves]

You're such a spergduke.



Let me begin by saying that one of the premises you base your entire argument off of is absurd and false. You can measure inherent skill - via a field study, and then form the loose correlation with skill and time. The same can be done with a hacky form of statistics. The former involves putting players in the same situation with the same equipment through the same scenario multiple times over a large amount of time and then rating how good players went through these situations. This could be accomplished with the start of an interference round - where the amount of money going towards equipment is the same, and assuming that all of the equipment is balanced. Then all one would need to do is find out how long the said players were playing, and see if there is a relationship between skill and time played to prove the link. The second is almost the exact same thing - it, however, does not involve a field study - all it requires is a couple of samples of games where how long a player played is recorded without giving them an advantage. Then all one needs to do is to observe exactly how well the player fairs in games against other players - via their statistics. I'm pretty sure you will agree that inherent is actually quite measurable - as it is equal to perceived skill if all the players use a balanced set of equipment. Of course there is never a thing such as true balance, but balanced well enough and the slight differences caused by imbalance will simply become insignificant. It is very possible to measure how much inherent skill a player has in interference, it can be done by recording the first half hour of the game.

I also believe that you have not understood my argument too clearly. I do claim that a "person will become better because he is better" - which at first does seem like a circular argument. But understand the effect the study point system will have on this. (By the way, the conclusion I made that skilled players will get more skilled because of their skill is irrelevant - I do not have a problem with this, I just believe that perceived skill should rise linearly to inherent skill - or almost linearly, and not exponentially.)

The fact of the matter is that the players who will benefit the most from this point system are the ones who have, statistically higher inherent skill than the ones who benefit less (i.e. play less). As I've said at the start of my post, yes, there is accounting for inherent skill. Your argument that there are players who are good outside of reasons of experience is quite frankly, irrelevant. In the greater scheme of things, how many players do you think are going to be like your childhood hero, Muad'Dib/Paul A., quick to adapt to any new thing and situation, as compared to how many will get their skill from raw experience? I'd wager there won't be a lot, and statistically speaking, those few people are insignificant.

At this point let me define two terms, just as you did, sperglord. A natural increase in perceived skill would be one that is caused by an increase in inherent skill. An artificial increase in perceived skill would be one caused outside an increase inherent skill.

My problem is not that, contrary to what you might think, is that players are more capable the more inherently skilled they are (only in a very light sense - I believe newbies, should they band together or adapt certain tactics, should be able to take down the most formidable of foes if they outnumber them), but that this study point system (an artificial increase) will cause perceived skill not to rise linearly to inherent skill - or even almost linearly - but exponentially over the course of an interference game. You do not directly artificially increase the amount of perceived skill a generally speaking more skilled player will have - but rather you increase the amount of perceived skill he gets per certain time amount. Think of a rolling ball which has to go 100m, normally, on a frictionless track to get to an accelerator. In this analogy, the initial speed of the ball will represent the inherent skill, and the general speed of the ball the perceived skill. As the ball gets to 100m, (e.g. the time it takes for a newbie/pro to get an upgrade) it will get faster and have to go 120m for the next acceleration. What you're proposing is that balls that often go to this track, and have experience on how exactly to make their initial velocity higher, should only have to go 80m for the first upgrade.

... what? I understand the need for progress and incentive - but wouldn't this sort of thing have a slippery slope effect on the ball velocity/ player skill through a game? Generally speaking, those who can afford to reduce the range till the first accelerator / first upgrade have a higher starting velocity/are more skilled. This will cause a slippery slope effect, upon which the perceived skill of a player is way too high for the newbies to handle. The problem with this system is that you're pampering people with too much inherent skill - which I need to remind you, is almost exclusively governed by experience, and for which one can account for.

Now I'm not suggesting that we should somehow restrain inherent skill - this theoretically can be done by heavily basing a game on luck - but may I be as bold to suggest that we do not reward a natural skill increase with the easier potential for an artificial one, which is almost the same thing as giving away the artificial increase? Or perhaps to make the magnitude of such a potential discount for artificial skill increase low?

There are other ways to give incentive to long term players - ones that do not give such a huge potential advantage. Like I said before - unlocking weapons which serve as side grades, achievements, perhaps new models and skins.

[Maxstate]

You're such a spergduke.

There are other ways to give incentive to long term players - ones that do not give such a huge potential advantage. Like I said before - unlocking weapons which serve as side grades, achievements, perhaps new models and skins.

To begin with, I wanted to express my sincerest gratitude to you for representing my argument in this way of being so far removed from reality that your entire contra-post is almost like some form of postmodern burlesque. It gave me great joy to see you outline so clearly to what extent you lack skills of reason and text comprehension.

First of all, I never said you couldn't measure inherent skill. You literally spent 301 words disproving a point I never made. lmao

As for your second paragraph: I don't even know what to say. You're contradicting yourself and then again putting words in my mouth. You leave me speechless, honey.

It's yet to be proven that study points will be of use only to those who are already very good. We haven't even discussed how study points will be distributed. A possibility of equal distribution is possible if we make it count total play time. I have no problem with giving players who play equal time, equal study points. If we stick to the formula, this retroactively justifies itself. My problem is that you are claiming noobs will be detrimentally affected by the study points concept, while you have really yet to prove how this will be. How this argument ties into our main narrative here is that using this 'prophecy' of yours you expect to argue against a distribution that doesn't even exist yet.

Oh yeah I almost missed that time where you again put words in my mouth, like saying that: "Your argument that there are players who are good outside of reasons of experience is quite frankly, irrelevant." while what I said was "INHERENT skill is the skill that you gain personally from your own empirical existence." and that " PERCEIVED skill is the skill that others think you have [...] a compound of INHERENT skill [and] bought [skills] or [invested game time]." I... I don't.... I'm speechless. You win the fox news award lmao

For the slippery slope effect you're describing: yes, that slippery slope effect exists. It's what we call leveling up lmao. Your analogy is flawed because you don't take in account that even the newbies will get study points and likewise benefit from a 'accelerator'. The second problem with your analogy is that it ignores seniority of experience. You're forgetting that 'vets' or 'elites' are named so for a reason - that they have had previous experience with the game and have natural inherent skill in it. I see your issue with raising unnatural subjective skill but it only really stands in the case that only elites / vets get it raised. As I tried to make clear, newbies are elites in the making. There's a false dichotomy being drawn while their representors if drawn in a Venn-diagram would largely overlap, so to speak.

Reducing the bonus given for an 'artificial' increase would be acceptable if enough people are opposed to this idea. But when does it become useless as a concept? Draw a line in the sand, and see if we cross it. Define your parameters.

As to the part I quoted - I was hoping you would say this. It is exactly why I added a third option and the possibility to bring in your own ideas. If you are not opposed to a system like this but have other ideas, why vote no instead of 'edit, addition or suggestion' ?

[Maxstate]

To make a compromise, since I do understand your argument that there would be a HUGE dichotomy between the infinitesimile small number of long-term ultravets and the super small number of day-old newbies, what about two balancing ideas:

-If a newbie kills a vet, they would get an experience bonus/multiplier so they could also catch up faster;
-More androids/sentries/mechanical defensive soldiers are made per team depending on the number of high-level players on the other team.

Better?

[Revolves]

To begin with, I wanted to express my sincerest gratitude to you for representing my argument in this way of being so far removed from reality that your entire contra-post is almost like some form of postmodern burlesque. It gave me great joy to see you outline so clearly to what extent you lack skills of reason and text comprehension.


fgt i <3 you too


First of all, I never said you couldn't measure inherent skill. You literally spent 301 words disproving a point I never made. lmao


I thought you meant can't measure by can't account for - there are like 10 definitions for that word, my sincerest apologies


As for your second paragraph: I don't even know what to say. You're contradicting yourself and then again putting words in my mouth. You leave me speechless, honey.


fag you better l2read, i said how the study point system has that effect - the shit in parentheses was a clarification of what i thought could've been implied that was false


It's yet to be proven that study points will be of use only to those who are already very good. We haven't even discussed how study points will be distributed. A possibility of equal distribution is possible if we make it count total play time. I have no problem with giving players who play equal time, equal study points. If we stick to the formula, this retroactively justifies itself. My problem is that you are claiming noobs will be detrimentally affected by the study points concept, while you have really yet to prove how this will be. How this argument ties into our main narrative here is that using this 'prophecy' of yours you expect to argue against a distribution that doesn't even exist yet.


They would be negatively affected if study points take total play time into account - instead of the last session's time. You also need to say if study points are gone once you use them - or if they stay - exactly how are they distributed - etc. If you get study points for a certain amount of time, then the next time you spend them all and they don't come back, it wouldn't feel like progress. If they don't go away then there's the problem that too many players will have too many study points cuz they play the game 24/7, and besides what's to stop people from idling to get points that way?


Oh yeah I almost missed that time where you again put words in my mouth, like saying that: "Your argument that there are players who are good outside of reasons of experience is quite frankly, irrelevant." while what I said was "INHERENT skill is the skill that you gain personally from your own empirical existence." and that " PERCEIVED skill is the skill that others think you have [...] a compound of INHERENT skill [and] bought [skills] or [invested game time]." I... I don't.... I'm speechless. You win the fox news award lmao


leo???? I was refering to the paragraph after you quoted my sh1t


For the slippery slope effect you're describing: yes, that slippery slope effect exists. It's what we call leveling up lmao. Your analogy is flawed because you don't take in account that even the newbies will get study points and likewise benefit from a 'accelerator'.


This again depends on the distrubution of study points b1tch - it would hardly be considered leveling up if the study points go away after you use them never to have a use again


The second problem with your analogy is that it ignores seniority of experience. You're forgetting that 'vets' or 'elites' are named so for a reason - that they have had previous experience with the game and have natural inherent skill in it.


perhaps you need to read my analogy more carefully - the velocity represents the perceived skill - the initial velocity would get higher with more inherent skill, and it would get even higher from an acceleration device (which is the in-game upgrade)



I see your issue with raising unnatural subjective skill but it only really stands in the case that only elites / vets get it raised. As I tried to make clear, newbies are elites in the making. There's a false dichotomy being drawn while their representors if drawn in a Venn-diagram would largely overlap, so to speak.


it is imperative, i think, to draw in newbies with their first games, an effect which would be largely helped by the fact that, oh i don't know, that the pros who've been playing this game for months have a large artificial advantage? or can you get the same amount of study points they have in 4 hours of gameplay? both of the systems are then either redundant or newbie-unfriendly


Reducing the bonus given for an 'artificial' increase would be acceptable if enough people are opposed to this idea. But when does it become useless as a concept? Draw a line in the sand, and see if we cross it. Define your parameters.


If your aim with this is a sense of progression, then I do not see why exactly it has to be progression - just a token sense is fine to hook the players in, no? Although I also would prefer a system which does actually give real progression.


As to the part I quoted - I was hoping you would say this. It is exactly why I added a third option and the possibility to bring in your own ideas. If you are not opposed to a system like this but have other ideas, why vote no instead of 'edit, addition or suggestion' ?

Because any compromise I'd have would be largely displaced that it hardly seems like the original idea any more.



Towards your compromise: No, that's one of the most retarded ideas I've ever heard. You said it yourself, why punish players who play a lot? That makes absolutely no sense. Somehow I think the irony in this is that you're suggesting that we do account for inherent skill, because I hardly believe that vets are defined as those who have high perceived skill, only indirectly due to their high inherent skill.

A counter proposal, then? If you never played the game, or you only play from time to time, you'll start off with a preset min of study points the moment you join a game. It would be a low amount - say three or so - but enough to spend into one skill to fully specialize it - you can only put a max of 3 points into the same skill. Then if you play a lot, the next time you play you can receive a max of 9 study points - enough to fully specialize in 3 skills - but you can't go over the max of 9 study points, and once you spend the study points you gotta earn some new ones. You get 3 free ones, and can get 6 more from playing, 3 to fully specialize a skill to make earning the level ups for it quicker. Also there should be a large jump from the reduction you get from 2 points and from 3 points - e.g. it could be a 5%, 15% , 30% reduction scheme.

This would make total-newbies/people who don't play a lot take up specialized roles in the team - giving an incentive for teamwork as different players will have different skill learning capabilities and thus different skills. A more hardcore player would then be able to specialize in 3 skills - which would make him more versatile, but not more deadly, since he would need to fan out the skill-XP he earns over 3 skills, meaning in the end he could be less powerful than a highly specialized 3-pointer who uses one skill exclusively.

This would promote teamwork, and helping out your team in one way if you don't play a lot, while giving players who play more often a chance to experiment and fill the more exotic roles that would require a larger range of abilities (an assassin type character would not only need good sniping skill-levels, but also good mobility, while a grunt soldier only needs specialization in shooting his assault rifle)

[Monochrome]

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/shookdown/dio.jpg


BETWEEN THE VELVET LIES
THERE'S A TRUTH AS HARD AS STEEEEEEEEEEEL

[Maxstate]

alright if you want to play this game

fgt i <3 you too

I thought you meant can't measure by can't account for - there are like 10 definitions for that word, my sincerest apologies

lmao we already talked about this idea in chat you knew exactly what i meant you just didn't read properly

fag you better l2read, i said how the study point system has that effect - the shit in parentheses was a clarification of what i thought could've been implied that was false
lmao its my fault that you suck at grammar!!!! lmao

They would be negatively affected if study points take total play time into account - instead of the last session's time. You also need to say if study points are gone once you use them - or if they stay - exactly how are they distributed - etc. If you get study points for a certain amount of time, then the next time you spend them all and they don't come back, it wouldn't feel like progress. If they don't go away then there's the problem that too many players will have too many study points cuz they play the game 24/7, and besides what's to stop people from idling to get points that way?

me: yo dude we cant really tell whether thye'll be negatively affected since we havent talked a way to distribute it

you: but they will be negatively affected if we choose x way of distributing point!!!!

lmao


leo???? I was refering to the paragraph after you quoted my sh1t
once again it is my fault you suck at grammar lmao



This again depends on the distrubution of study points b1tch - it would hardly be considered leveling up if the study points go away after you use them never to have a use again
youre sowing deliberate confusion and misinformation about the idea. we discussed it in private chat many times. its not relaly that hard to understand. this entire point is irrelevant



perhaps you need to read my analogy more carefully - the velocity epresents the perceived skill - the initial velocity would get higher with more inherent skill, and it would get even higher from an acceleration device (which is the in-game upgrade)
perhaps you should read my post. youre ignoring two aspects of the system just so it suits your analogy.




it is imperative, i think, to draw in newbies with their first games, an effect which would be largely helped by the fact that, oh i don't know, that the pros who've been playing this game for months have a large artificial advantage? or can you get the same amount of study points they have in 4 hours of gameplay? both of the systems are then either redundant or newbie-unfriendly
youre dealing with a lot of unknowns. will the vets really play a lot without anyone to play against? will the study point system even be ready on initial release of the game? will the study point system be tied to master-server events or just regular gameplay? i mean by your logic the newbies could just locally start a server and milk studypoints in x way lmao



If your aim with this is a sense of progression, then I do not see why exactly it has to be progression - just a token sense is fine to hook the players in, no? Although I also would prefer a system which does actually give real progression.
what the fuck is a token sense. i cant even parse this shit. what does htis mean^



Because any compromise I'd have would be largely displaced that it gardly seems like the original idea any more.
lmao the option even says "I HAVE A BETTER IDEA"



towards your compromise: No, that's one of the most retarded ideas I've ever heard. You said it yourself, why punish players who play a lot? That makes absolutely no sense. Somehow I think the irony in this is that you're suggesting that we do account for inherent skill, because I hardly believe that vets are defined as those who have high perceived skill, only indirectly due to their high inherent skill.
idgi. its one of the most retarded ideas youve ever heard... because it punishes players who play a lot? how does that work. a player killing another player of much higher rank gets more xp, and this for you is unfair towards the person being killed? why?

also of course it will be about perceived skill. your perceived skill is that which players will experience when they encounter you. if this was about inherent skill, i wouldnt have made this freakin post since i can't reach out over the internet and turn the 'inherent skill' of people down a notch. i can make their study point-given advantage a bit less important through giving the other party a session-long bonus that would make their leveling faster by giving them more experience when they do kill someone with a higher perceived skill.

A counter proposal, then? If you never played the game, or you only play from time to time, you'll start off with a preset min of study points the moment you join a game. It would be a low amount - say three or so - but enough to spend into one skill to fully specialize it - you can only put a max of 3 points into the same skill. Then if you play a lot, the next time you play you can receive a max of 9 study points - enough to fully specialize in 3 skills - but you can't go over the max of 9 study points, and once you spend the study points you gotta earn some new ones. You get 3 free ones, and can get 6 more from playing, 3 to fully specialize a skill to make earning the level ups for it quicker. Also there should be a large jump from the reduction you get from 2 points and from 3 points - e.g. it could be a 5%, 15% , 30% reduction scheme. ]

this makes no sense. the next time you play, what comes after that? you say 'if you play a lot, the next time you play then *get sh1t*' how the fuck do you define the 'time after having played a lot' ? i do get your idea but this is like temporary study points-lite

This would make total-newbies/people who don't play a lot take up specialized roles in the team - giving an incentive for teamwork as different players will have different skill learning capabilities and thus different skills. A more hardcore player would then be able to specialize in 3 skills - which would make him more versatile, but not more deadly, since he would need to fan out the skill-XP he earns over 3 skills, meaning in the end he could be less powerful than a highly specialized 3-pointer who uses one skill exclusively.

why would someone put only 3 points into a skill? is it the max? you never explained what happens to the maximum number of points you can spend in one skill category once you have more than 3 points. who would want to fan out and invest in all skills??? do you even understand the concept here?

This would promote teamwork, and helping out your team in one way if you don't play a lot, while giving players who play more often a chance to experiment and fill the more exotic roles that would require a larger range of abilities (an assassin type character would not only need good sniping skill-levels, but also good mobility, while a grunt soldier only needs specialization in shooting his assault rifle)
yeah and there's a thousand ways to sequester people into classes that are more efficient and easier for the programmers

[Revolves]

lmao we already talked about this idea in chat you knew exactly what i meant you just didn't read properly


put words in mouth nigga



lmao its my fault that you suck at grammar!!!! lmao


l2read


me: yo dude we cant really tell whether thye'll be negatively affected since we havent talked a way to distribute it

you: but they will be negatively affected if we choose x way of distributing point!!!!

lmao


maybe you should've given proposed way of distribute commie goods?!


once again it is my fault you suck at grammar lmao


i did not count on someone with the reading comprehension of a weasel to read my post



youre sowing deliberate confusion and misinformation about the idea. we discussed it in private chat many times. its not relaly that hard to understand. this entire point is irrelevant


put words in my mouth nigga


perhaps you should read my post. youre ignoring two aspects of the system just so it suits your analogy.


maybe you can't understand analogy because you dumb babby?! those two aspects are in there l2read


youre dealing with a lot of unknowns. will the vets really play a lot without anyone to play against? will the study point system even be ready on initial release of the game? will the study point system be tied to master-server events or just regular gameplay? i mean by your logic the newbies could just locally start a server and milk studypoints in x way lmao


lol there are so few vets they can't play against each other
lol when the study point system is released somehow has something to do with its viability
lol how exactly the study point system will be done is very important to the idea of it
lol yes thats what they'll do



what the fuck is a token sense. i cant even parse this shit. what does htis mean^


token, some gay online dictionary;

2b. Merely symbolic: refused to be the token woman on the committee.

full phrase would be a 'token sense of progression' yagemash


lmao the option even says "I HAVE A BETTER IDEA"



I do not know why then anyone would vote yes


idgi. its one of the most retarded ideas youve ever heard... because it punishes players who play a lot? how does that work. a player killing another player of much higher rank gets more xp, and this for you is unfair towards the person being killed? why?

also of course it will be about perceived skill. your perceived skill is that which players will experience when they encounter you. if this was about inherent skill, i wouldnt have made this freakin post since i can't reach out over the internet and turn the 'inherent skill' of people down a notch. i can make their study point-given advantage a bit less important through giving the other party a session-long bonus that would make their leveling faster by giving them more experience when they do kill someone with a higher perceived skill.



hey guys lets make a system upon which, when the player is thought to have more inherent skill by how much he played and what level he is, that he will automatically come against more resistance

yes its fair

yes there still is a point in leveling because he can do more dick waiving

and yes ill suck your dizzle for 5 bucks



- Maxstate

]

this makes no sense. the next time you play, what comes after that? you say 'if you play a lot, the next time you play then *get sh1t*' how the fuck do you define the 'time after having played a lot' ? i do get your idea but this is like temporary study points-lite


That's the point - more permanent study points will only serve to divide people into sh1t and make the game unfair for newbies


why would someone put only 3 points into a skill? is it the max? you never explained what happens to the maximum number of points you can spend in one skill category once you have more than 3 points. who would want to fan out and invest in all skills??? do you even understand the concept here?


The point is that a newbie can invest just as much as you in one skill - and you can't go over it. This is to prevent super soldiers from coming out of 20 study points into one skill in 10 kills - and to encourage older players to try out new stuff and for them to mix and match ideas.

btw this is why i voted no, the premise this idea would be going after is completely different - not a sense of progress, but rather an incentive for teamwork, and for trying new sh1t out


yeah and there's a thousand ways to sequester people into classes that are more efficient and easier for the programmers

i prefer the 'make your own class' approach - as cheesy as it sounds

[Maxstate]

literally the only argument you have against it is that it MIGHT, in some hypothetical scenario, overpower veteran players

lmao

[Revolves]

newbies who get killed due to stuff the other guys unlocked in such a short time due to study points causes hate, hate causes jealousy, jealousy causes newbies leaving the game

is big problem dont try ridicule!!!

[Ace]

I don't mind rewarding veteran players with new skins/models. But I am against rewarding them with better stats, so that they have an advantage over newer players. So many games make this mistake and not only does it make the game harder to play for newcomers, it also causes elitism amongst the player base.

Alien Vs. Predator has ranked play where players can unlock new skins for each race; it's rewarding enough without changing any game mechanics.

[[Alpha]-0mega-]

stfu my +6 Dragonforged ethereal demon slaying godsword of black hole burst owns you.

[Revolves]

it's been proven;

if we implant this idea, then another holocaust of the jews will follow!!!

[Maxstate]

"israel."
/
http://bound.filefreak.net/forum/image.php?u=38&dateline=1265644077

[Maxstate]

I'm going to decide whether to keep or throw this idea away by this thursday (18-3-10). Be sure to vote by then or mob rule rules go in.

[[Alpha]-0mega-]

I don't mind rewarding veteran players with new skins/models. But I am against rewarding them with better stats, so that they have an advantage over newer players. So many games make this mistake and not only does it make the game harder to play for newcomers, it also causes elitism amongst the player base..

If I have things straight veteran players will already be rewarded by being better at killing NPC's that drop equipment, thus still having an advantage over ''newbies'' with their new weapons, regardless of ''study points''.

[Revolves]

but that also means that they are the last group of people who would need an advantage in stats

[Maxstate]

Alpha, that would be an increase in inherent skill which is what itjadinfsdingfosdbgfousdfb nevermind