Shorlen2006-09-19 07:28:07
Might is currently not a clear indication of anything. Partially because of player skill and coding, which cannot be helped, but partially because of non-combat skills.
What if skills like trades, arts, aethercraft, riding, dramatics, and influence only counted 10% or 20% as much towards your might as they do now, and guildskills counted 150% more than they do now? Would that make it more accurate?
What if skills like trades, arts, aethercraft, riding, dramatics, and influence only counted 10% or 20% as much towards your might as they do now, and guildskills counted 150% more than they do now? Would that make it more accurate?
Shirath2006-09-19 14:05:03
Perhaps skills could be tagged to be useful for Combat or not. Those that are should add up to Might. Those that aren't should be left out completely. Then there's the Circles that -could- (not should, COULD) be somehow implemented?
Shorlen2006-09-19 14:16:05
QUOTE(Shirath @ Sep 19 2006, 10:05 AM) 333212
Perhaps skills could be tagged to be useful for Combat or not. Those that are should add up to Might. Those that aren't should be left out completely. Then there's the Circles that -could- (not should, COULD) be somehow implemented?
The problem is that the trans influencing skill helps in combat for wiccans and guardians. The trans tailoring skill is amazingly helpful, as is all of the other trans trade skills. Arts includes discerning illusions. Every skill has a combat use, but the "non-combat" skillsets only have one or two combat skills in them.
Unknown2006-09-19 15:16:27
TEST YOUR MIGHT
You couldn't ask me not to do that.
Maybe each individual skill should be tagged as wether or not to count into might and for what classes, and how much they add to it. And your circle should add to it as well.
You couldn't ask me not to do that.
Maybe each individual skill should be tagged as wether or not to count into might and for what classes, and how much they add to it. And your circle should add to it as well.
Unknown2006-09-20 01:02:26
I always found might as an indication of the character's skill advancement - 0% of my might means he's a newbie, 200% was Geb (whom I shamelessly honoured to see what was my progress to omnitrans). If they're old and low on might then they're either slackers (bad) or play without buying credits OOCly (neither good nor bad).
Even with your proposal, might still wouldn't be an indication of actual might. An omnitrans can easily fall to an expert-level (skill rank) fighter, if the first one was just a credit-noob and the other was a good warrior (read: someone's alt).
Short version. Might is and will always be useless. Here's my idea - remove it entirely.
Even with your proposal, might still wouldn't be an indication of actual might. An omnitrans can easily fall to an expert-level (skill rank) fighter, if the first one was just a credit-noob and the other was a good warrior (read: someone's alt).
Short version. Might is and will always be useless. Here's my idea - remove it entirely.
Unknown2006-09-20 01:07:32
Not worth the effort of changing it. Might is good for seeing how high their skills are in relation to you, rank does the same for level, and there's no way to really quantify 'talent'. All is well.
