CLOK BBS

At it's core this would award skill gains based on the successes and failures that take place during the combat after the target is killed. The idea is that while in combat, your successes add to the awards, and failures reduce the awards. A maximum skill gain cap per target would insure that fighting the same target for any extended length of time is pointless.
For example, during a single encounter, target 1 successfully attacks the player 3 out of 8 times. The player successfully attacks the target 5 times out of 9. This would mean that the player successfully defended 62.5 percent of the time, and successfully attacked 55.6 percent of the time.
There were 8 rounds by the target and 9 rounds by the player. Assume each round puts .1 skill gains into the pool that the player can potentially receive to their defense skills, and likewise for the rounds the player attacks. These values would be altered based on the challenge rating of the target. Assume in this example, it is the highest challenge rating possible.
In this example, the total skill gain possible the player would receive to defense would be .8, while .9 would be the maximum they received towards their offensive skill. Now comes into play the percentages we calculated earlier. Multiply the maximum potential for defense skill gain by the defensive percentage, 0.625, the result is .5. Now do the same for offense, the result is about .5. The total combined skill gain for this encounter is 1.0. Depending on what the maximum skill gain is set to, this value would be reduced. For example, if it were set to .20, then the value would be split based on the percentage defense and offense contributed to the total skill gain. In this case it is a 50/50 split. The player is then awarded .10 defensive skill gains, and .10 offensive skill gains.
Some issues that might arise would be related to the use of multiple offensive and defensive skills, in which case each round by the player and target would have to be assigned to a skill. When a target fights multiple players, it would need to assign each of its rounds according to the player and their defensive skill used and whether or not it was a success or failure. Hopefully I have explained this idea well enough. Please add any ideas or concerns you might have.

From a knee-jerk reaction, it sounds needlessly complicated.

Giving it some further thought, it's not particularly different at its core than how it is now; the awards are just given at end of combat instead of during, but still based off the number of successful attacks and or dodges.

I'd gather the multi-strikes would further complicate this system as the offense and defense "rounds" would be skewed wildly based on the individual number of attacks being delivered or defended against.

Yeah, it is a bit complicated, but it would encourage players to develop their own tactics for dispatching foes efficiently, rather than just picking up a branch and beating an npc to death after debuffing them with fractured limbs for 15 minutes. In this set up, the player is encouraged to debuff the target, and eliminate them quickly, so they can move on to the next target. Deciding on the methods to debuff and which debuffs to apply is how the player develops their tactics. The end goal is the same though. In addition, it's a lot more fun than the current branch beating bonanza.

I am ignorant as to how others train. Is that a thing that happens often? The system proposed seems as if it may make it difficult to train things like aeromancy and hydromancy at low amounts. How would it deal with interrupted combat such as hitting and running with stealth?

It is a strategy some have adapted, yes, and one that seems required if you don't want to have to visit the infirmary every 5-10 minutes.
Your concerns for aeromancy and geomancy do seem valid. Though, I believe earomancy does cause a knock down when successfully cast raw. Being knocked prone grants a negative 5 reroll to defenses, so if you supplement your aeromancy with other weapons, it could work out. As for the other elements, it'd just have to be part of the starting process. Once you gain some skill and abilities the other elements become very good at dealing damage and debuffing. Alternatively, you could partner with someone to help initially.

Okay, I just did some testing on my elemancer, and aero and hydro both cause knock down with a single channel. Geo has a pretty nice damage output, so it is not so weak. These were all before applying the compression to raw casts as well. So it seems there isn't much of an issue here either.

I applaud your enthusiasm, but it seems to me a system like this would unfairly award certain weapons over others, unless a system was written out to limit every style of attack. For instance, if I have the math right, using a dagger and attacking 9 times, resulting in 18 successful attacks, would net 18 points to offense. Or .18. I don't math correctly on the best of days, much less after a 12 hour shift.

Either way, one would be grossly advantageous, while the other would pale in comparison. And since Rias last mentioned he wanted the return of multi-strikes, or was leaning towards that with some limitations, you'd find this same issue over and over again with all sorts of weapons.

How would the skill difference between character and mob apply? I'd assume there'd be a limit based on the disparity.

Also, efficiency can mean different things to different people. Same with fun. I don't like skill grinding, so I'm going to find the most efficient method of gaining skills. If that's beating a laborer with a branch for 20 minutes, so be it (not that I've done this). Fun for me is thinking tactically - most of the characters I've ever played in MUDs were lightly armored, stealth based combatants. For survivability, you're required to think that way, especially in Clok/Cogg which I lovingly refer to as the Elden Ring of MUDs.

I can understand the idea of multiple strikes skewing numbers, and in truth it's already that way now. With single hit weapons as it stands, you get one attempt to make a successful hit. With daggers, you get three potential attempts to land a successful hit. That is before any rerolls are considered. It quickly becomes 2 to a potential of 6 rolls if you consider morale rerolls. In the end, I think it balances itself out, and with the maximum skill gain per target, I don't think it would matter much in the end anyway.

Sneaky wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 3:38 am The idea is that while in combat, your successes add to the awards, and failures reduce the awards.

Very little would make me less interested in grinding up skills than I already am, but missing a target that I swing at reducing the skillgain earned sounds like an absolute nightmare. This would just mean I would start breaking NPCs legs before I skill grind, so I don't miss as often.

Yes, that is the hope here. You would take advantage of all of your skills and abilities to push the target's defenses down so you can stack your successes before ultimately finishing them off and move on to the next target. You can already do that now, but you are better off delivering some fracturing blows that don't cause bleeding, then switching to a worse damage type and milking the situation for as many skill gains as you can before the target falls unconscious or dies.

Sneaky wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 7:13 am Yes, that is the hope here. You would take advantage of all of your skills and abilities to push the target's defenses down so you can stack your successes before ultimately finishing them off and move on to the next target. You can already do that now, but you are better off delivering some fracturing blows that don't cause bleeding, then switching to a worse damage type and milking the situation for as many skill gains as you can before the target falls unconscious or dies.

Yes. And if I received a bonus for every success, and a penalty for every miss (even with a cap on either of those two), I would just exactly the behavior you're trying to avoid, and start fighting easier/less dangerous mobs because the thought of losing skillgain on a miss is terrible. This wouldn't encourage better or worse behavior - just a different kind of gaming the system that rewards kills.

Maybe I'm not following what you're saying here, but I would much rather see rewards for utilizing abilities and skills in ways that seem reasonable and not gamey. At any rate, it seems that the consensus is that this idea has no merit, so rather than continue to support it, I'll just leave it as is. Thanks for everyone's contributions.