Nerf the Academy

[De-Legro]

People with poor swordfighting wouldn't sit and calculate their odds if they weren't so bad. Most people know they've never done anything to increase their swordfighting skills, which means that basically everyone is likely to be better than they are. If the increases were greater due to fighting, then things wouldn't be the same, because at least everyone would know they are far better than they were when the character was created.

As for 5/90, sure it's an exageration, but even with 15/50, what are your odds? I would find it interesting, however, if someone with access to the dbase could give some stats on everyone's swordfighting skills.

Yes, except that being a hero doesn't seem to change much about the things we are talking about.

And they would also know that it would be relatively the same as anyone else that fights for the realm. Thus in terms of relative skill it might as well be at the starting level, since they will still know that anyone that has put even the slightest effort in will be above them. The thing is though, the majority of NOBLES wouldn't even care. We are talking about the same kind of crazy mindset that see honour killings in some cultures. We are talking about the same sort of irrational thinking that leads to Maniots families each having a fortified tower to lock themselves into when Vendetta's were declared, the common goal of the Vendetta's being to wipe out the other family, every man women and child.

Sure some nobles will be made of different stuff, rational and logical but the majority should feel their blood boil when their honour is stained. Its not about WINNING the duel, honour is generally satisfied by the simple act of defending it, win or lose.

Finally the percentages that skills are expressed in are also relative. Even the lowest skilled sword figther noble in the game should be regarded as a decent swordsmen. Sure they haven't reached the pinnacle of the craft, but they would know the basic movements and stances, and which end is the pointy one.

[Zakilevo]

Then even a low skilled fighter should have at least 20% chance to beat a skillful fighter in a death duel

[Norrel]

Then even a low skilled fighter should have at least 20% chance to beat a skillful fighter in a death duel

More randomness, or more reliance on chosen stances, would be cool.

[De-Legro]

Then even a low skilled fighter should have at least 20% chance to beat a skillful fighter in a death duel

Can anyone say this isn't already the case

[Bedwyr]

Then even a low skilled fighter should have at least 20% chance to beat a skillful fighter in a death duel

I'm pretty sure you do.  I haven't looked at the code, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a d100 roll with the skill percentage modifiers tossed in and the modifiers based on your duel style choice.

[De-Legro]

I'm guessing the details are probably something that Tom doesn't want known, but perhaps if we were to throw ballpark figures out there? Course if people actually bothered to duel to start with, you would possibly have a data set to work these things out IG.

[Zakilevo]

Once all the secession crap ends, I will take my guy for a walk around Dwilight and challenge everyone to a duel! I wonder how long he will last before he loses his head 

[Arundel]

I say we get rid of the numerical system on skills. People won't accept duels if they know they have only 20% in swordfighting while their opponents have something like 50%.

And about a person trained in academy being better than someone hardened on the battlefield, I say the trainee might be able to beat a soldier in a duel to surrender but doubt he can defeat the other person in a death duel.

I agree partially with the first statement. I would not remove the numerical system, but I would hide it from the players. Maybe it could be generalized more? Perhaps simply: A good fighter, an average fighter, and a poor fighter. This leaves room for interpretation, second guessing, uncertainty, investigation, and perhaps a more "realistic" approach to dueling; yet behind the classes are the actual numbers.

One could RP the situation being: "Well I heard Sir Gron is a fairly decent fighter, but his competitor, Sir Heskalis, is also familiar with the blade. It should be a good match up, I'm truly uncertain at who will win." The part I like most about this idea is even the players dueling wouldn't know, until the end of the duel. If an average fighter were to face a good fighter for instance, then  the good fighter would probably win. This keeps a distinction, adding fighters to "classes" instead of letting the world know they're exactly 80% efficient at sword fighting.

In terms of medieval atmosphere, as mentioned earlier, this would be the most realistic approach - having grand tales of one's triumphs/honor, over the fledgling experiences of another. They could be told through the streets, in courts, and always rumored about because the people only know you're good, not exactly how good. This would also present a gamble, as criticized earlier, but essentially that is what dueling to the death was - a gamble of life in the name of honor. You are trying to win your honor, or regain your honor, over the competitor's. You are taking a chance in believing your sword arm is superior than the other.

I'm not familiar with the coding, but at first glance, I would guess it would only be patch work with this idea. You would keep the system, but only publish different wording to the player. Again, I'm unsure, and I could be completely wrong.

[De-Legro]

I agree partially with the first statement. I would not remove the numerical system, but I would hide it from the players. Maybe it could be generalized more? Perhaps simply: A good fighter, an average fighter, and a poor fighter. This leaves room for interpretation, second guessing, uncertainty, investigation, and perhaps a more "realistic" approach to dueling; yet behind the classes are the actual numbers.

One could RP the situation being: "Well I heard Sir Gron is a fairly decent fighter, but his competitor, Sir Heskalis, is also familiar with the blade. It should be a good match up, I'm truly uncertain at who will win." The part I like most about this idea is even the players dueling wouldn't know, until the end of the duel. If an average fighter were to face a good fighter for instance, then  the good fighter would probably win. This keeps a distinction, adding fighters to "classes" instead of letting the world know they're exactly 80% efficient at sword fighting.

In terms of medieval atmosphere, as mentioned earlier, this would be the most realistic approach - having grand tales of one's triumphs/honor, over the fledgling experiences of another. They could be told through the streets, in courts, and always rumored about because the people only know you're good, not exactly how good. This would also present a gamble, as criticized earlier, but essentially that is what dueling to the death was - a gamble of life in the name of honor. You are trying to win your honor, or regain your honor, over the competitor's. You are taking a chance in believing your sword arm is superior than the other.

I'm not familiar with the coding, but at first glance, I would guess it would only be patch work with this idea. You would keep the system, but only publish different wording to the player. Again, I'm unsure, and I could be completely wrong.

Okay a different skill system was tested on BT years ago. It had the cool little graph thing and instead of telling you what your skill level was, it told you how you faired in four categories relative to each other. So basically you could tell "I'm a much better sword fighter then I am a courtier". Not sure what happened with that, I think Tom wasn't completely happy with it.

The obfuscation of the stats is similar to what we did with region stats. It certainly could work quite well.

[Zakilevo]

Yeah. When you train in the academy instead of getting your mentor judged your skill level to be at 5%,
we should get something more uncertain like "You have noticed a child beside you scoffed at your pathetic swings and asked if you are a clown.".

Once you reach somewhat high level, "Your enemies wouldn't dare to stand in your way. Only someone of renown can hope to stop you".

[De-Legro]

Yeah. When you train in the academy instead of getting your mentor judged your skill level to be at 5%,
we should get something more uncertain like "You have noticed a child beside you scoffed at your pathetic swings and asked if you are a clown.".

Once you reach somewhat high level, "Your enemies wouldn't dare to stand in your way. Only someone of renown can hope to stop you".

So pretty much just what Arundel said.

[Zakilevo]

Would this making things subtle work for the armies as well? Instead of showing solid numbers like 10 000 CS, maybe change that to A Lot? I doubt people will like this but wouldn't this make people think a bit?

[De-Legro]

Would this making things subtle work for the armies as well? Instead of showing solid numbers like 10 000 CS, maybe change that to A Lot? I doubt people will like this but wouldn't this make people think a bit?

I'll give you a hint, the CS numbers aren't solid. Two 10 000 CS armies are not necessarily equal, or even close to being equal. Arcaea has shown that in the past when our extremely heavily armoured infantry armies completely destroyed archer based armies with higher CS. I've seen armies of similar CS on the battlefield, at the end of the battle one side has lost maybe 10-20% of their CS while the other is down to 70-80%. Not what I would call solid.

[Arundel]

Would this making things subtle work for the armies as well? Instead of showing solid numbers like 10 000 CS, maybe change that to A Lot? I doubt people will like this but wouldn't this make people think a bit?

Well numbers can already be "estimated" but they can be far off, as De-Legro said.

Perhaps you're looking for something along the lines of, "The enemy's equipment appears to be more advanced." or "Their armor is made of tougher steel and their horses well fed and able (Symbolizing better to equal CS, respectively?)" etc...   I won't talk about it to much, perhaps making a separate thread?

Yeah. When you train in the academy instead of getting your mentor judged your skill level to be at 5%,
we should get something more uncertain like "You have noticed a child beside you scoffed at your pathetic swings and asked if you are a clown.".

Once you reach somewhat high level, "Your enemies wouldn't dare to stand in your way. Only someone of renown can hope to stop you".

As De-Legro said, that is basically what I stated, but perhaps we could merge the two dialogues?

"You train and toil for 8 hours, and you learn much. Albeit, children are seen laughing at your clumsiness, as you trip over the master's blade and bruise your arm.

You're not a very well trained fighter, but with more effort, perhaps that could change."

or

"You spend an hour dueling with the beginner's sword-master. You find it mildly challenging, yet you parry his strikes as if all to familiar. The other fighters have stopped to watch you, seeing their former master beaten in battle is more than entertaining.

You're decent with the blade, no one will contest, but you could be better."

[Norrel]

stuff

This is a good idea. People shouldn't know who the best swordfighter in the realm/continent is just by math- it should be hotly contested in tournaments and stuff like that. This could serve as an interesting venue for conflict.