Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Bort
Wow, lots of intense debate in here over the last couple days.

There will never be a full-respec option. Partial maybe, but not full, so don't bother going down that route.

SA's certainly would be easiest angle to approach the idea from, since the math for attributes is a nightmare to figure out. A friend of mine made a suggestion while I was eating dinner with him a while ago, though, which sounded sorta interesting. I haven't done the math for exploitability, but the idea is: give the ability to de-train one attribute while training something else up. No SP assignments; just reverse training in exchange for training another skill. It could cost training points, and would allow you to respec your player naturally over time.

I'm glad to read there will never be a full re-spec (partial ones have some merit, as long as they're limited enough). Just posting to say that "a full or large re-spec" needs to be added to the NGTH list now.

Originally posted by Bort
Wow, lots of intense debate in here over the last couple days.

There will never be a full-respec option. Partial maybe, but not full, so don't bother going down that route.

SA's certainly would be easiest angle to approach the idea from, since the math for attributes is a nightmare to figure out. A friend of mine made a suggestion while I was eating dinner with him a while ago, though, which sounded sorta interesting. I haven't done the math for exploitability, but the idea is: give the ability to de-train one attribute while training something else up. No SP assignments; just reverse training in exchange for training another skill. It could cost training points, and would allow you to respec your player naturally over time.

Happy dance!

Oh, and yeah Bort, please update this to the NGTH list. It's exhausting shooting this down time and time again.

Originally posted by Bort
Wow, lots of intense debate in here over the last couple days.

There will never be a full-respec option. Partial maybe, but not full, so don't bother going down that route.

SA's certainly would be easiest angle to approach the idea from, since the math for attributes is a nightmare to figure out. A friend of mine made a suggestion while I was eating dinner with him a while ago, though, which sounded sorta interesting. I haven't done the math for exploitability, but the idea is: give the ability to de-train one attribute while training something else up. No SP assignments; just reverse training in exchange for training another skill. It could cost training points, and would allow you to respec your player naturally over time.

Interesting way to tackle it. I like it. The one thing I'd say is that SA decimals should be avoided, just because its nice having them be exact and whatnot. So no percentages or anything, if its going to take more than one training to move a point it should be a set number of trainings. Sort of like if you have Smooth Operator Level 5, it takes 3 trainings to move a point from there to Super Vision. No 33% or .34 per training.

Originally posted by TheInfinity
Originally posted by Bort

Wow, lots of intense debate in here over the last couple days.

There will never be a full-respec option. Partial maybe, but not full, so don't bother going down that route.

SA's certainly would be easiest angle to approach the idea from, since the math for attributes is a nightmare to figure out. A friend of mine made a suggestion while I was eating dinner with him a while ago, though, which sounded sorta interesting. I haven't done the math for exploitability, but the idea is: give the ability to de-train one attribute while training something else up. No SP assignments; just reverse training in exchange for training another skill. It could cost training points, and would allow you to respec your player naturally over time.

Interesting way to tackle it. I like it. The one thing I'd say is that SA decimals should be avoided, just because its nice having them be exact and whatnot. So no percentages or anything, if its going to take more than one training to move a point it should be a set number of trainings. Sort of like if you have Smooth Operator Level 5, it takes 3 trainings to move a point from there to Super Vision. No 33% or .34 per training.

I was talking about attributes with the de-training, not SA's. SA's would have to be done with skill point assignments because they are whole numbers.

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by TheInfinity

Originally posted by Bort


Wow, lots of intense debate in here over the last couple days.

There will never be a full-respec option. Partial maybe, but not full, so don't bother going down that route.

SA's certainly would be easiest angle to approach the idea from, since the math for attributes is a nightmare to figure out. A friend of mine made a suggestion while I was eating dinner with him a while ago, though, which sounded sorta interesting. I haven't done the math for exploitability, but the idea is: give the ability to de-train one attribute while training something else up. No SP assignments; just reverse training in exchange for training another skill. It could cost training points, and would allow you to respec your player naturally over time.

Interesting way to tackle it. I like it. The one thing I'd say is that SA decimals should be avoided, just because its nice having them be exact and whatnot. So no percentages or anything, if its going to take more than one training to move a point it should be a set number of trainings. Sort of like if you have Smooth Operator Level 5, it takes 3 trainings to move a point from there to Super Vision. No 33% or .34 per training.

I was talking about attributes with the de-training, not SA's. SA's would have to be done with skill point assignments because they are whole numbers.

Oh. So it would be like a boosting effect to the attribute you are training while lowering the other attribute?

Originally posted by TheInfinity
Originally posted by Bort

Originally posted by TheInfinity


Originally posted by Bort



Wow, lots of intense debate in here over the last couple days.

There will never be a full-respec option. Partial maybe, but not full, so don't bother going down that route.

SA's certainly would be easiest angle to approach the idea from, since the math for attributes is a nightmare to figure out. A friend of mine made a suggestion while I was eating dinner with him a while ago, though, which sounded sorta interesting. I haven't done the math for exploitability, but the idea is: give the ability to de-train one attribute while training something else up. No SP assignments; just reverse training in exchange for training another skill. It could cost training points, and would allow you to respec your player naturally over time.

Interesting way to tackle it. I like it. The one thing I'd say is that SA decimals should be avoided, just because its nice having them be exact and whatnot. So no percentages or anything, if its going to take more than one training to move a point it should be a set number of trainings. Sort of like if you have Smooth Operator Level 5, it takes 3 trainings to move a point from there to Super Vision. No 33% or .34 per training.

I was talking about attributes with the de-training, not SA's. SA's would have to be done with skill point assignments because they are whole numbers.

Oh. So it would be like a boosting effect to the attribute you are training while lowering the other attribute?

Yeah, using the training curve. Seems like a zero-sum sort of thing - I don't think you can really game the math there, but I might be missing something.

Originally posted by Bort
Originally posted by TheInfinity

Originally posted by Bort


Originally posted by TheInfinity



Originally posted by Bort




Wow, lots of intense debate in here over the last couple days.

There will never be a full-respec option. Partial maybe, but not full, so don't bother going down that route.

SA's certainly would be easiest angle to approach the idea from, since the math for attributes is a nightmare to figure out. A friend of mine made a suggestion while I was eating dinner with him a while ago, though, which sounded sorta interesting. I haven't done the math for exploitability, but the idea is: give the ability to de-train one attribute while training something else up. No SP assignments; just reverse training in exchange for training another skill. It could cost training points, and would allow you to respec your player naturally over time.

Interesting way to tackle it. I like it. The one thing I'd say is that SA decimals should be avoided, just because its nice having them be exact and whatnot. So no percentages or anything, if its going to take more than one training to move a point it should be a set number of trainings. Sort of like if you have Smooth Operator Level 5, it takes 3 trainings to move a point from there to Super Vision. No 33% or .34 per training.

I was talking about attributes with the de-training, not SA's. SA's would have to be done with skill point assignments because they are whole numbers.

Oh. So it would be like a boosting effect to the attribute you are training while lowering the other attribute?

Yeah, using the training curve. Seems like a zero-sum sort of thing - I don't think you can really game the math there, but I might be missing something.

It might encourage slow builders to boost an attribute crazily high really early, wait some levels for it to be in the 10:1 range of SP or the like and then reverse train it to give huge gains to the other attributes which are still in the 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 ranges.

The punter with 100 natural punting would be able to reverse train it with a 20:1 ratio!

If you're not careful, then the most effective way to build a player would soon be to boost one attribute as high as possible as early as possible - even worse than it currently is where people at least focus on taking 2, 3 attributes through the caps - and then use that one attribute to leach the SP it gains from level ups into the other attributes. This exploit would lead to hugely unrealistic builds for the first 5ish seasons of a player's life, as people try to take one thing as close to 100 naturally as possible.

However, only you know the precise maths

Originally posted by mandyross
It might encourage slow builders to boost an attribute crazily high really early, wait some levels for it to be in the 10:1 range of SP or the like and then reverse train it to give huge gains to the other attributes which are still in the 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 ranges.

The punter with 100 natural punting would be able to reverse train it with a 20:1 ratio!

If you're not careful, then the most effective way to build a player would soon be to boost one attribute as high as possible as early as possible - even worse than it currently is where people at least focus on taking 2, 3 attributes through the caps - and then use that one attribute to leach the SP it gains from level ups into the other attributes. This exploit would lead to hugely unrealistic builds for the first 5ish seasons of a player's life, as people try to take one thing as close to 100 naturally as possible.

However, only you know the precise maths

you bring another interesting point about this, and it just happens to be another reason for me to disagree with it.

Could have it costs 3TPs to reduce one stat by the same amount training would raise it, and boost another stat by its normal train x1.5 Tha'ts quite expensive for 150% price of a normal train, you gain the 150% gain in one stat, BUT you'd lose the secondary stat.
So the cost would detrimental but not too high that it would be useless.

The other idea would be maybe to add something for a 1BP cost, so that it can't be used too much.
For 1BP (no tp cost) raise 1 stat up the normal training amount, while reducing another by the normal training cost.
BPs are valuable so this again would be reigned in by its cost.

Originally posted by didymus

Happy dance!

Oh, and yeah Bort, please update this to the NGTH list. It's exhausting shooting this down time and time again.



Maybe you should do the "I cant read dance".

Take alook at the 1st page, talk to Jed if you need to but this thread is for SA Respecs as well, plus since Bort is discussing this with us now, we can talk about it in a different light because only he knows certain things in respect to this all.

We should put you on the NGTH list.....

Originally posted by Bort
Wow, lots of intense debate in here over the last couple days.

There will never be a full-respec option. Partial maybe, but not full, so don't bother going down that route.

SA's certainly would be easiest angle to approach the idea from, since the math for attributes is a nightmare to figure out. A friend of mine made a suggestion while I was eating dinner with him a while ago, though, which sounded sorta interesting. I haven't done the math for exploitability, but the idea is: give the ability to de-train one attribute while training something else up. No SP assignments; just reverse training in exchange for training another skill. It could cost training points, and would allow you to respec your player naturally over time.


Thats definatly an interesting idea. It would at least give a bit more depth into training and what you could do with it. Altho the numbers of it would have to be looked at by you i guess.

But definatly something that id agree with.

I completely understand that, since attributes do not deal in whole numbers, it would be very difficult to respec them. NOT IMPOSSIBLE, just difficult.

With that being said, does this mean you can get all your skill points back you invested in SA, and use them as you see fit? Whether it be on a new set of SA's or invest them into your attributes, etc. etc. etc.?

Also, we should also be able to re-roll Veteran Abilities as well. They are whole numbers and could be implemented in the respec just as easily as SA.

You are talking like this should be part of the released game, which is fine. I hadn't considered it for the released version, and I'm kind of iffy on leaving the mechanism in once you go live, although if the "tweaks" continue (which they most likely would have to) then I very much understand the reasoning behind it.

I personally believe this should simply be a Beta mechanism that allows the users to more fully explore the boundaries of the attribute system, the SA system, and the VP system, but that would entail a much more expansive mechanism than what Bort just suggested.

PinTBC

MD: Update OP with Bort's input, please.

Reverse-training sounds fairly odd to me, but I don't oppose it.

I'd honestly like to see some means of being able to train SAs using a similar training curve to attributes, e.g. to train an SA from 0 to 1 once would give 10% toward it, and it could cost more TPs or have different effects on bonus tokens.

Originally posted by dmfa41
MD: Update OP with Bort's input, please.



Done.